John, we agree on much, that the physical world is a mechanism that may be freely described by the methods of natural science. There is no spirit in the machine. Religion has an evolutionary origin see my papers: http://users.bigpond.net.au/sellick/Evolutionary%20hermeneutics%20revised.htm, http://users.bigpond.net.au/sellick/Boyer%20rev.htm

Where we disagree is in the step you take when you say that religion and other aspects of human behavior can be explained in terms of the physical universe. While that is ultimately true, it is misleading because it assumes that higher levels of complexity may be explained in terms of low levels. For example, when you have something as complex as a nervous system its function cannot be explained by the activity of individual nerve cells, it is their connectivity, plasticity, inhibitory and excitatory states that constitutes a total functioning. Reductionism ignores complexity. It is an even a greater step to start talking about human behavior and culture as being reducible to lower levels of explanation. Can a symphony be reduced to physics and chemistry?

The other point at issue concerns your lumping all religion in with Frazer’s analysis. Salvation comes from the Jews because Israel took a different path than that of native religion because instead of being a nature religion, the religion of Israel was based on its experience of history. It was thus not rooted in physics and chemistry, which is one way to view the world, but in the way events went among the nations and between individuals. It is based on real historical events even thought these became embellished with what we would call supernatural elements. Thus it was not dreamt up, but evolved with the experience of the nation. That is why it still informs us of what it means to be human.

Excellent article John I would like to pick up on some points by Sells.
While reductionism can seem clumsy at times I don’t think you can say that it doesn’t take complexity into account without some qualification. There is a movement by some within science specially theoretical physics to come up with a differing methodology to reductionism, however I feel it is a bit early to say whether it has any real use yet. A notable member of this movement is Prof Davies who recently has written in New Scientist about this subject titled “ Higher laws and the mind-boggling Complexity of life”. So far reductionism have only failed when we’ve not had a fully developed understanding of the complex systems we are describing. As Davies points out in his article he believes such statements to be worthless because even if you could reduce the complex system down to it’s basic’s you could not use it to make any useful predictions of outcomes. This line of reasoning is particularly important in the area of biological emergence because of the shear complexity of even the simplest life. Non-reductionit (for want of a better word) side step this problem by suggesting that there is a inherit likelihood of complexity (life) emerging from inorganic matter. A sort of contra to entropy if you will, in that when a system gets sufficiently complex it tends towards more complexity rather then less

The article by John seemed to me as a 'high browed' or a scientific view that there is no Creator God. One reason given is because people have visions and these can come from a chemical inbalance. As one with little scientific knowledge all I have to do is look outside and see a balanced (well once it was balanced) organised creation. I have read about evolution, how each creature came to what it is today and I try to understand how say sex came into being. There would have to be two units one sort of male the other sort of female who would have to evolve side by side. Then they came together, I ask why here, but together they came and tried to have sex.But because not all the many bits had been formed this coming together was a failure, so back to laying eggs or dividing their selves or whatever. So another twenty or so million years until two more units even more advanced found and recognised each other and tried to come together. I mean how many times did this happen? Yet if one were to look at the similarities between species surely there is strong proof of a master designer.If one were to look at mankind's brain and reasoning capacity surely one could see design.Yet strangely the Bible gives no proof of creation one is asked to accept what is written by faith.Many scientist have no proof of evolution they must accept evolution also by faith.Regards, numbat

John Warren may be right about our minds natural ability to create and entrench god ideas in our worldviews and cultural heritage . I get the strange feelng, though, listening to all this desire for a simple rationale for what is really still beyond us , that we are taking our limited understanding of ourselves a little too seriously; "if we say we know, when we still don't know its wrong- Are we not asserting- we are and there is none other."
I'm reminded by the general tone of this discussion of those early Russian cosmonauts who, having arrived at space before all other comers, and as reps of the great reductionist culture of the 20 century declared - "He's not here , therefore He's not there".

Maybe when we collectively behave like children we should agree to wonder at the real limits of our knowledge, our arrogance instead of the more productive element of humility -scientific humility.
When we believe like children ( even as geochemists) paradoxically many of us can still only wonder and be willing to consider the possibility of worship . Maybe too, if it is in the blood, maybe none of us can exorcise it? Join me at http://graceware.blogspot.com After all , whatever it is, its a strong force to work its magic so effectively all those eons.

I don't understand the issue - there is just so much overwhelming evidence for creation - after all its in the bible so it must be true. All those fossils, layers of rock, discernable climate change detected in antarctic ice, biological analysis on which we base our medical technology, carbon dating, common sense - that's just there to ......oh , yes to test our faith.

We can see by the comments by numbat, Sirhumfree, Ringtail that religions niche is in the minds of the weak and stupid. No wonder we so many pointless debates with the GB’s. Just because your not smart enough to understand it doesn’t mean it is not true. It may well be beyond you Sirhumfree but not's beyond humanity.
Step into the light.

Ringtail & Kenny: Those who have nothing constructive to say ridicule others beliefs.You are both sad people. Regards, numbat

I think it important that we look at some of the deficiencies of evolution, or should I be more precise and say random evolution. Mount improbable can be climbed if it is a climb and not a "technical" mountain.

To take a simple example, if we could achieve intelligence by random genetic mutations how come we havn't achieved AI. We should be able to do it by a fairly simle genetic algorithm.

A few more. Flagellum in bacteria needs 50 closely interacting genes. Eye was evolved once and you can't get away without 5-10 simultaneous mutations at a bare minimum.

The alternative to Intelligent Design is an infinite Universe or Multiverse, where something eventually has to happen.

How does the human brain resolve the following conflict:

If I believe in a religious God I will be happy
If I believe in a scientific basis for the universe and the things that happen in it, all I get is a lot of confusing scientific ideas that might keep changing.

How does the human brain resolve the following conflict:

If somebody else believes something different to me, it might mean I am wrong about the nature of the universe. If I am wrong about the nature of the universe, then I can no longer be happy.

Does the human brain always have to know everything? Can we be happy if we know that other people think and believe different things than we do? My soulmate in this universe for the past 20 years and the best thing that ever happened to me, can't understand why I would spend one minute watching cricket on television. Can we still be happy together?

I’ve just discovered the Forum. Interesting site. Regarding John’s article and the various posts; of course religion is the product of evolution. Once one fully grasps the concept of evolution, EVERYTHING is the product of evolution. We are either the result of the Hand of God or the Hand of Evolution, either way the processes are the same.

It always surprises me to hear people take a “scientific” stand and state with certainty that there is no God (or spiritual existence to life). And in doing so they of course bring along all their mental baggage regarding God and religion. Just because one has wrong ideas of God does not provide evidence that there is no such thing. Yes, there’s no old guy with a white beard nor is there a ghost in the machine but to flatly state from a scientific viewpoint there is no spiritual existence to life is a rather profound statement of fact, based on absolutely no evidence.

The latest attempt to discover the unified theory (M-theory) proposes 11 different dimensions; 3 spatial, 1 time and 7 others. No one has any true idea what these 7 other dimensions are; space/time is hard enough to get one’s mind around. Assuming the theory is correct, I don’t know if we will ever truly be able to understand these dimensions; they are beyond our frame of reference. The same is true about some type of spirituality to life. To boldly state there isn’t this or isn’t that with no real evidence throws the entire concept of science out the window

Isn't John Warren a soccer player? That would make sense since he clearly knows very little about the history of science.

Modern science is largely the result of the Christian worldview. All the great scientists were at least theists if not Christians eg. Pascal, Newton, Joule, Boyle, Farraday, Watt, Kepler, Kelvin, Pasteur etc etc.

Even in modern times, it was Werner von Braun, a Christian and creationist who ran the US space program. It was Christian and creationist Raymond Damadian who invented that medical marvel, the Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) scanner. It was, Christian and creationist, Prof. Graham Clarke who invented the Cochlear ear implant.

The most damaging point to the author's view is that the world's no. 1 atheist - Anthony Flew - has now rejected atheism!

He is not a Christian yet - but he is heading in that direction.

Note that the primary reason he rejected atheism was the scientific evidence against evolution!

You can read his full interview at:
http://www.biola.edu/antonyflew/flew-interview.pdf

Here are some interesting quotes:

HABERMAS (interviewer): Then, would you comment on your “openness” to the notion of theistic revelation?
FLEW: Yes. I am open to it, but not enthusiastic about potential revelation from God. On the positive side, for example, I am very much impressed with physicist Gerald Schroeder’s comments on Genesis 1. That this biblical account might be scientifically accurate raises the possibility that it is revelation.

FLEW: I think that the most impressive arguments for God’s existence are those that are supported by recent scientific discoveries. I’ve never been much impressed by the kalam cosmological argument, and I don’t think it has gotten any stronger recently. However, I think the argument to Intelligent Design is enormously stronger than it was when I first met it.

HABERMAS: So of the major theistic arguments, such as the cosmological, teleological, moral, and ontological, the only really impressive ones that you take to be decisive are the scientific forms of teleology?
FLEW: Absolutely. It seems to me that Richard Dawkins constantly overlooks the fact that Darwin himself, in the fourteenth chapter of The Origin of Species, pointed out that his whole argument began with a being which already possessed reproductive powers. This is the creature the evolution of which a truly comprehensive theory of evolution must give some account. Darwin himself was well aware that he had not produced such an account. It now seems to me that the findings of more than fifty years of DNA research have provided materials for a new and enormously powerful argument to design.

As usual the GB are off topic and out of their tiny minds. Intelligent design (ID) is just another sad attempt for Christians to push their world view. To think ID isn't a Christian world view is like suggesting family first isn't a Christian party. Evolution, geology physics and genetics are all wrong to the GB why because it contradicts the bible not because they can be shown to be wrong scientifically.
Notice how the GB’ are so up to date talking about Darwin the science of evolution has moved on in the last 150 years. Next you be telling us about the evidence for the flood, the world is only a few thousands years old and pi is equal to 3. It really is amazing the brain washing that the GB’s have gone in for. The GB’s should all be thankful that they were not around when Jim Jones was recruiting you guys would have been first in line.
Even the Catholics have move to a God of the gaps position.
Now lets get back on topic explain to us your thoughts on the article if you can.

I joined this forum a month or two ago. Good topics are posted, of course no body is going to agree with everything, pehaps only a few things.

But why the vitriol and personal attack against those identifiably Christian. Why do Kenny and his ilk hate us so much, its seems pathological. Would you like us to leave?

I appeal to the moderators of the site to at least try and squash this last kind of post from Kenny. There is certainly nothing rational about it - just someone venting their spleen.

David: Kenny is afraid that he might be wrong and there may be a Creator God after all so he is angry. Regards, numbat

I don't know whether he is afraid or not, but Aslan did draw our attention to a highly significant fact - Anthony Flew's switch from defence of evolution to embracing the concept of intelligent design as a requirement for the development of life in all its forms as we know it today. Flew has been described as the foremost British philosopher of his time.

People who don't want God in the equation cling to evolution like some old tired mantra - we would like such people to be prepared to consider the crumbling nature of the case for evolution. Personally for what it is worth, Michael Denton's Evolution A Theory in Crisis removed any last vestiges of evolution in my system, though I also find the evidence for an ancient universe compelling.

However before I say anything more, I need to heed Kenny's comment and look more closely at John Warren's argument - I suspect I will find fault with it. Back in a day or two's time.

Warren: However before I say anything more, I need to heed Kenny's comment and look more closely at John Warren's argument - I suspect I will find fault with it. Back in a day or two's time.

Not exactly approaching John Warren's argument from an un biased POV are you?

The evidence for evolution is more than compelling it cannot be explained away. The evidence for creation is zero.

I live a full and generous life without basing my good deeds on religion - I help out because I want to and so do many others who do not follow any formal religion. Please accept people as they are - not on their words but their actions - it is what you do to others that really matters not whether you believe in Jesus, Jehovah or Buddha.

Here's a link for Aslan - because you like them so much. This one is on the evolution of mammalian sex and how the X chromosone has been decoded and what it means for our understanding of differences between men and women. No doubt this discovery will assist medical science in treating many genetic illnesses. The article does not prove creationism however, and as far as I know creationism has not contributed any cures to our store of medical knowledge, not even aspirin.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A41919-2005Mar16.html

Ringtail
"The article does not prove creationism however, and as far as I know creationism has not contributed any cures to our store of medical knowledge, not even aspirin."

What you do not realise is that modern science was started by creationists. People who drew from their believe in an ordered creation of God to investigate the created.

The idea of continents moving was put forward 100 years before its 'discovered' by a creationist.

Natural selection...creationist...

The law of biogenesis...creationist...

As I only have 350 words, I can only display a miniscule tip of the iceberg...

Now as to you comments about decoding the X chromosone. That has nothing to do with evolution (Common descent evolution). It is totally irrelevant. The differences in the sexes are based on differences in the X and Y chromosones. These differences are just brute facts. No theory is required, they just are. Even in analyzing the differences you do not need evolution, just an understanding of genetics.

You might be interested in reading a recent article on reverse engineering biological life. Treating life as if it was designed seems to be quite useful in understanding its function... who woulda thought
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/0500276102v1

Grey

Beg to differ w/U. Ringtail's article is all about evolution. As for modern science, many people from many different religions and otherwise contributed to and began modern science.

A very big claim to say that modern science was created by creationists.

You like the idea of an ordered universe so U will find wot U need to prove it. Tried to look at your link, but needed to set up a password - will try to get to it some other time. Cheers

numbat, with that flawed understanding of evolutionary process I can see why you don't accept it. Evolution is all about gradual changes, but you are expecting complex changes.

Imagine a species of simple organisms that reproduce asexually. Many mutations happen and one of them results in an organism producing a chemical every 10th generation or so, the chemical doesn't actually do anything yet. Later on, another mutation occurs in the organism that reacts to said chemical and slightly alters the organism's structure; still nothing happens. Then another mutation occurs that allows it to exploit a feature of the organisms that do not have the structural change, allowing it to reproduce quicker. It only happens every 10th generation, but slowly this segment becomes the majority of the population.

Members of the population that are more "structured" reproduce more, especially when more "featured" organisms are around, so the predominance of the two types increases. Successive mutations develop the structures & features, and increase the probability of the chemical being produced. They are now "sort-of male" and "sort-of female", but they can still reproduce on their own. The more complex the species becomes and the more competitive the environment becomes, the more specialised each group will also become, until eventually they aren't able to reproduce on their own. Done.

"Yet if one were to look at the similarities between species surely there is strong proof of a master designer."
No, when biologists DO look at the similarities between species there is conclusive evidence of common ancestors, adaptation and flawed biological systems. Science isn't maths, there are no proofs.
---------------
Ian Parker:

"if we could achieve intelligence by random genetic mutations how come we havn't achieved AI."
Because we would need to simulate complex biological processes that we still don't fully understand and that have occured trillions of times per year for billions of years. So far we've got insect-like robots, give it some time.

"Flagellum in bacteria needs 50 closely interacting genes." And?
"Eye was evolved once and you can't get away without 5-10 simultaneous mutations at a bare minimum." Cite?

More later.

David, if you look around a bit you might notice that the strong attacks get targetted against a lot of beliefs and views, not just christianity.

You might also note that some of those fairly intense attacks (including plenty of name calling) come from some who openly identify themselves as christian.

You might also note the long bows drawn to tie evangelistic sermons to topics under discussion. A number of christians use this site to try and preach their message, heckling is to be expected. Live by the sword die by the sword kind of thing.

I personally would prefer a lot less villification of others eg the name calling etc. Have a browse through the postings by christians regarding homosexuality and see how well the postings fit with the way you would like christians to be treated (and I am not part of that lobbby).

I worry that some strict followers of many religions may reject societies laws, and may not take responsibility for their actions because they feel they get guidance from a preist, rabbi, mullah, minister, etc.

Despite that, I strongly support David's comment about Kenny's angry words. It is better if we can stick to debating the issues. Name calling adds nothing to the debate. Christians come in all shapes, sizes and with many different ways of looking at the world. Lets give everybody a chance to express their ideas and feelings and try to learn from whatever they say.

If God created Man (and Woman), who created God?

Actually Ambo, Sir Isaac Newton is generally regarded as the father of modern science and he was most definitely a creationist. If he had devoted as much time and effort to pursuing science as he did writing gibberish about religion, who knows what more he would have discovered. By the way I think the fact he was a creationist hindered, more than helped his science.

The main pursuit of modern physics, the search for the “Theory of Everything” seems to me to be the birth of science as religion. Whereas traditionally we have looked to a God to explain everything, we now look to science to explain everything. Maybe the “Theory of Everything” and God are one and the same.

My goldfish are getting darker.8yrs ago I started out with 9 goldfish in an out door pond of which a couple had hints of black and they bred profusely, while kookaburras and herons fed well.The gold fish with black and less striking colours survived because they blended into the environment better.Is this evolution or is the hand of god telling the birds of prey that colourful fish taste better.
Note the fuzzy thinking of the creationists.No amount of logic will change their minds because the awful truth lurking around the corner is too much to bear.
People who don't believe are no less human than those who do.It all depends on your awareness,education,and the genetic quality passed on from your parents.Having children is like throwing a dice with a million sides.It is this diversity that allows to adapt to our changing environment and in this way nature can be very cruel, because you can end up with some pretty screwed up genes.
Nature experiments with billions of possibilities,and thus through chance and elimination of defective genes we evolve.The evidence is pretty overwhelming.

While it is clearly possible within science's worldview to account for the advent and existence of religion, the reverse proposition does not hold. This is particularly evident when Christians seek to appropriate the language and methods of science in order to attempt to rationalise the persistence of a belief system based on the tribal myths of Semitic pastoralists, in a far more cosmopolitan and complex world than the writers of their sacred texts could have imagined. While the philosophical and intellectual gymnastics of the godbotherers can be entertaining, one becomes a bit embarassed vicariously as they struggle through the tortuous logic of, for example, the creationist/ID paradigm. No matter how hard they try, the square peg of superstition just won't fit the round hole of reason.

I agree that it's ironic that the practice of Christianity in Western Europe ultimately contributed to the sociocultural conditions that spawned the Enlightenment (and, indeed, capitalism), this doesn't mean that belief in supernatural beings hasn't passed its use-by date - at least in terms of having privileged influence over policies and laws that apply to all people. By all means let the Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindus, Buddhists etc practise their religions as long as that provides meaning and comfort for them and doesn't impinge upon the rights of those who don't share their beliefs - but I don't think that religious tolerance should extend to forcibly incorporating perspectives derived from beliefs in the supernatural (of whatever description), into secular society.

In my opinion, John is quite correct to assert that the sociocultural phenomenon of religion has been an adaptive mechanism in human sociocultural evolution. However, ever since the Enlightenment, it has been supplanted (at least in Western societies) by the demonstrated superiority - in both epistemological and ontological terms - of a worldview based on science and reason. Religion will undoubtedly be with us forever, but in evolutionary terms its persistence will be analogous to B.O. or body hair - essentially human, but of little to no utility in terms of adaptive value.

Morgan

Hippo,

Nobody created God. God is the first cause. That's what makes him God!

Kenny,

if evidence for evolution is so compelling then please indulge me. Give me your top 5 arguments.

Also, the driving forces of evolution are supposed to be mutation and natural selection. This means that organisms must reproduce in order for mutations to occur and natural selection to weed out the bad mutations.

But, self reproduction can only be achieved by a highly COMPLEX organism. So, how did this first self-reproducing organism evolve?

Aslan
U must've missed the link Ringtail made for U. Its all about sexual evolution - why don't U read it.
Morgan
Excellent commentary - I find it interesting how religous people unable to prove creationism have lobbed onto ID. I like to consider our tiny little planet in its orbit around an insignificant sun on a far flung arm of the milky way - just another galaxy in a universe of infinite size and wonder why any supreme being would bother with a bunch of intelligent apes. Religion is indeed the opiate of the masses. A sure sign of maturity is to take responsibility for ourselves, its scary not to have a god to lean on but it is a sign of emotional progress.

Author claims that the existence of religious belief can be explained by science.
Aslan states that the author is ignorant about the history of science and then gives examples of Xians and creationists involved in science.
Aslan considers that a prominent atheist's conversion to deism is "most damaging" to the author's view. David likewise considers it a "highly significant" fact.

I've being trying to work out why the author's history of science or one guy's conversion could possibly have any relevance to the article's claim. I haven't been able to find any reason, so I can't help but think that Aslan and David are trying to refute the claims using an appeal to popularity/authority by proxy. Ie. many great scientists and thinkers are religious, therefore religion is true, therefore religious beliefs are not a consequence of evolution. The attacks on evolution have some connection, but that argument does not. Of course, the claim's truthfulness wouldn't prove the absence of gods either.

Aslan, this is a link to a talkorigins article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
Reference to the "first self-reproducing organism" is a red herring, it has nothing to do with the validity of evolution. That said, the first "life" wouldn't have been an organism at all, not a single cell. Think replicating polymers, formed by chemical reactions, very simple.

Hi Ambo I see your new to this forum you will so see your on a hiding to nowhere with the GB’s but good luck.
Aslan if I thought you or the other GB’s had the intelligence to understand or the willingness to learn I would. Failing that there are lots of text books on the subject try buying one aimed at 10 years olds and work your way up.
Grey you said "Sir Isaac Newton is generally regarded as the father of modern science and he was most definitely a creationist"
Great scientist that he was no one say's that. The scientific method was developed over thousands of years with many cultures giving it a helping hand. As for Mr Newton he was also a spiritualist do you go in for that stuff too.
Creationist are as creditable as astrologers don’t forget that for biblical creation to be correct all our fields of science would have to be wrong. The bible clearly say’s creation took place over six days six thousands years ago.

THERE IS ONE WAY TO FIND OUT .ASK INSURANCE COMPANIES TO INSURE US AGAINST THE NON EXISTANCE OF G0D.WHAT WOULD THE PREMIUM BE? IF GOD DOES EXIST THEY WIN,AND IF HE DOESN'T EXIST THEY STILL WIN, BECAUSE WE WON'T BE AROUND TO COLLECT.

GEE I THINK I'LL START UP A NEW RELIGION.IT COSTS NOTHING TO PRODUCE,YOU PAY NO TAXES AND NO ONE CAN PROVE OR DISPROVE ANYTHING.TO THINK I'VE BEEN WORKING HARD ALL THESE YEARS TRYING TO PAY FOR MY FAMILY AND RETIREMENT.THE ANSWER HAS BEEN THERE ALL THE TIME.ALL YOU AGNOSTICS AND ATHIESTS HAD BETTER SEE THE LIGHT AND START BELIEVING!!

To Sells sorry for not getting back to I think you may know who this is.

What surprises me somewhat that in such arguments that it is the Christian against the atheist or scientist as if the Christian religion is the ‘true’ religion by default.

What about all the other religious faiths from Animist to Buddhist are they just superstitions?

They cannot all be true, central doctrinal foundations make many religions especially the big three mutually exclusive. So even if there is a ‘true’ faith it means humans are totally capable of making up elaborate theological/social constructs out of creative narrative. If the Christian thinks this of the Hindu why cannot the same be said of you?

No I cannot prove the Christian ‘God’ doesn’t exist but nor can you disprove that invisible pink unicorns didn’t create the universe or any of the Animist creation stories are myth or that the Olympians haven’t just gone on holiday.

But when archeological evidence shows that Jews are just mountain Canaanites, that they were polytheist whose monotheism went through its own evolution rather than the Mosses and the burning bush myth, I would rather tend to think it is like any other religious tradition a human invention that serves human needs.

Let alone the fact the Christian God -especially the Old testament version- is a blood thirsty tyrant who if he where a citizen in our society would be tried as a war criminal and child murderer.

Deuc asks:
"I've being trying to work out why the author's history of science or one guy's conversion could possibly have any relevance to the article's claim. I haven't been able to find any reason, so I can't help but think that Aslan and David are trying to refute the claims using an appeal to popularity/authority by proxy."

Did you read the article Deuc? Warren says natural science confirms and justifies the materialist view of the world. Yet modern science arose only in the western world and only out of the Christian worldview. The founders of modern science were motivated by their theistic beliefs not by any materialistic view, and their discoveries caused them to honour God not reject him.

The significance of Flew's conversion is that it was inspired by modern science! In other words, contrary to what Warren says, modern science convinced him that evolution was impossible.

Do you get it now?

Deuc wrote:
"Aslan, this is a link to a talkorigins article "29+ Evidences for Macroevolution" http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/"

I am aware of the talk.origins archive. Here is the rebuttal to that nonsense:
http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1a.asp

Deuc wrote:
"Reference to the "first self-reproducing organism" is a red herring, it has nothing to do with the validity of evolution."

Not at all. For evolution to occur, life must exist. If life does not exist then evolution is a non-starter. You can't get out of it that easy. Explain the beginning of life or concede that evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups.

Deuc wrote:
"That said, the first "life" wouldn't have been an organism at all, not a single cell. Think replicating polymers, formed by chemical reactions, very simple."

Not simple at all. See:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp

Interesting Aslan you make much of current science convincing Flew to change his position- when by the latest study anyway if you are a scientist you are more likely not to believe in a personal god the do- but then go onto to dismiss mainstream science by touting your creationist non-science nonsense. Sorry you cannot have it both ways.

BTW the rise of the scientific worldview in the Christian west to some extent does come from the Christian view of laws and the law maker- not to mention wanting to work out the date of the Armageddon- but also there are other non-Christian contributors like the pagan ancient Greeks, the Hindu zero, the infidel Muslim that without which in all likelihood medieval western Europe would have continued to be a relatively primitive backwater compared to the rest of the world.

If you have the time also respond to my other post of why we should give the default position to your ‘God’ and not to any other of the other religious conditions?

Several themes have been raised in the comments on my article. Here are replies to three of them:

First: I hope my argument did not rely on reductionism. I see it differently. When oxygen and hydrogen are in the gaseous state their behaviour can be explained by a specific set of laws. When they combine as H2O they become water. The water DEPENDS on H and O but it obeys new laws and its behaviour cannot be EXPLAINED in terms of the laws of its components. In the same way the MIND is a product of, and DEPENDS on, the physics and chemistry of the brain but is not EXPLAINED by them.

Second: Everything in the MIND, all the images and thoughts, is a product of natural BRAIN PROCESSES. The IDEA of supernatural GODS and GHOSTS is also one of the products of the brain. They do not exist as BEINGS outside the BRAIN. There is no supernatural BEING which can exercise a FORCE to deflect the course of a speeding bullet away from the heart in defiance of the physical laws which govern the rest of the world. Despite what the Pope says he believes in his book “Memory and Identity”, his heart was missed because the assassin’s aim was not as accurate as the Pope thinks, not because of Supernatural Intervention.

Third: EVOLUTION is a concept which applies to far more than animals and plants. It simply means regular development and change. Things have a beginning, they grow and develop then die. Astronomers accept the evolution of cosmic bodies. They condense from gas, grow and burn as stars and finally dwindle to such density that they die as supernovae. The elements evolve from the simplest sub-atomic particles. They grow and develop in an ordered sequence as laid out in Mendeleev’s atomic table. If “Aslan” wants evidence of evolution he/she should look in the mirror. The beginning was just two little cells, they grew and developed into a very complex individual and will, unfortunately, die. In other words Aslan evolved.

John Warren

As promised I have looked at John Warren’s piece on “The Science of Religion”.

In opposition to Stephen Gould and as an orthodox Christian I agree with John Warren that Science and religion cannot be separated. Contra John, I assert religion involves the knowledge of God whereas Science is the attempt to trace the finger of (the creator) God.

I have no idea of what John means by talking about religion having come to a dead end. This is self delusion. While I recognise a certain, no doubt pleasing, flourish to claim religion requires “a need to (be) endlessly interpreting… words to the changing demands of society”, I for one find the Christian faith remarkably relevant to the state of western society in particular. And as for John’s claim that the materialist path has led to unending understanding and real control, the claim both over reaches itself and frightens at the one and the same time. Science has capacity for both good and bad, and who can deny the bad, when we think of the devastations of 20th century wars.

Every race has some concept of God, humanity is irrefutably religious and this shows no signs of dissipating. Fascinating to observe the collapse of atheistic communism and the return of many Russians to their ancient faith. And what shall we say of the rapid spread of the Christian faith in China, where recent estimates place the number of Christians at between 50 and 100 millions? And this in a nation where atheistic communism forced out the missionaries leaving behind barely 5 million Chinese Christians.

I want to assure John that we Christians are a long long way from seeing ourselves down and out. In the West, without doubt we are struggling, but what shall we say of the West with its fertility in precipitous, possible terminal decline?

I may come back with some comments on John's excessive, indeed unsustainable faith in evolution………….

John Warren says, "If “Aslan” wants evidence of evolution he/she should look in the mirror. The beginning was just two little cells, they grew and developed into a very complex individual and will, unfortunately, die. In other words Aslan evolved."

This is nothing more than the faith statement of a materialist, nothing more, nothing less. It cannot be demonstrated by evolution and anyone who says so is having themselves on.

I read the article. Maybe it's changed, because nowhere in it can I find a statement that Flew wasn't convinced by modern science that evolution is impossible. One famous philosopher deciding that modern science supports intelligent design will not change the facts. The views and motivations of great scientists have no effect on the reality of the things they, or others, discover. Apparently I was right and there is nothing to *get*, you are just making an appeal to authority -- it's fallacious. If modern scientific discoveries supported intelligent design then creationists would be able to make sound logical arguments capable of surviving the peer review process, but they don't.

"I am aware of the talk.origins archive. Here is the rebuttal to that nonsense:"
Even with a quick glance at that page I can see that it is your reference that lacks sense:

First point: simplifies argument into a strawman.
Second point: rejects evidence because evolution could also produce different evidence.
Third point: ignores it, uses scientific debate on a related subject as a refutation instead.

Three strikes and you're out, I won't spend more time on it. You wanted arguments for evolution and you have them, or at least know where to find them.

"For evolution to occur, life must exist. If life does not exist then evolution is a non-starter."
I think therefore...

"Explain the beginning of life or concede that evolution is a fairy tale for grown-ups."
I'm not going to spend more time explaining things, things you could find out for yourself, just for you to shoot them down without giving them any consideration. There is an overwhelming amount of evidence for my "fairy tale", what about yours? It doesn't matter if an alien or a supernatural force created life, evolution would still be fact: red herring.

"Not simple at all. See:
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/enzymes.asp"

Sarfati? You can't be serious, this guy thinks the 2nd law of thermodynamics disproves evolution. Like you, he wants abiogenesis to produce full cells like we have today. His poor critiques of *three* possible methods for creating life have incorrect expectations too.

I watched with interest as the flow of these comments descended from the first 2 rather 'serious minded' posts, quickly into an oblivion of 'My scholar can kick your scholars butt' and 'your stuuuupid' and.. etc etc.

Its interesting too, noticing that as soon as some 'warrior of atheism' gets a little edgy and shakey, "Oh, that doesn't change what he discovered" etc :)

The one I find MOST interesting (John) is the idea of God being nothing more than the invention of chemical processes of the mind.

That does nothing to explain an absolute plethora of well known and reliably witnessed phenomena of God intervening in amazing ways in our earthly abode and experience. But one needs to be on the cutting edge of the kingdom to see this kind of thing. But thats not what I wanted to share here 2night. I've addressed something of the article, and comments, now I want to share some joy.

"Boaz, dont you know that the church is dying, fading, dead, past use by date etc"

Hmm having just come back from the Telstra Dome where 37,000 'god botherers' were sharing in the joyful worship and fellowship of 'He who is not there', and singing, waving their misguided hands around, to the hip sounds of contemporary Christian bands of the highest calibre, with our Christian Governor General sharing with us, I don't have any desire to verbally whack the likes of brother kenny :), The dynamism and energy and overflowing love, was truly something to behold and experience.
I just say "The road to Damascus is long and winding, be careful what you look at on the way".

Interestingly, 37,000 is also the average figure for the number of spectators at AFL matches at the Telstra Dome for 2004. So the Holy Rollers are as popular as footy... hallelujah!

I know it's something of a cliche that Aussies treat their sport with religious reverence, but... are you absolutely sure those people weren't there to watch the footy?

Morgan :)

"The dynamism and energy and overflowing love, was truly something to behold and experience."

You don't have to believe in a deity to experience the above, Boaz, you just have to be human and be part of a positive experience - be it football (Morgan) or the Big Day Out. I have also experienced dynamic energy and overflowing love during sex or watching a sunset. Life is wonderful. I don't see any evidence of some superior being in it just the reality of my senses. My brain chemistry. We evolved to feel in order to continue.

BOAZ_DAvid, one of the problems with religous experience being a guide to reality is that if you go to a different culture with different beliefs you will still find people with exciting experiences to share (I get the impression some Islamic believers can get into experience in a big way). I have not seen much of it recently but the New Age was even get flying saucer visits for a while and healings a plenty.

Unless you are into something really unpleasant it will always be fun to get together with lots of others who agree with you on some key point (especially if the event is put together by a well organised promotions team with skill at making sure you do).

For those of you who whish to discuss the actual article.
I find it quite interesting and intriguing that the sexuality of the deity generally changes from female to male depending on the apparent sophistication of the society. We can see this in the egiptian and other early civilizations even the cannite gods. I wonder if this is caused by the civilizations gradual dominance over nature. Female gods generally have a giving or protective nature while male gods tend to have a aggressive nature that requires appeasement.

>That does nothing to explain an absolute plethora of well known and reliably witnessed phenomena of God intervening in amazing ways in our earthly abode and experience.

Boaz -are you talking about the Bible in the above?
BTW I'm assuming that you are talking about the Christian God.

Even if you are talking about modern miracles, do you think that the Christian miracles are reliable and all other non-Christian are just myths or mental disorders? Please justify.

Given the apparent link between religiosity and temporal lobe epilepsy -search for past Compass programme- why should we think that religion -combined the social benefit of shared group values and identity grant- is anything other than the result of materialistic forces?

Kenny did you know for the early proto-Jews that they were polytheist and that 'God' had a wife?

Neohuman,
Yes the early Canaanites head god was EL which later changed to Yahweh when the hill tribes started to form a distinct culture of their own. There seems to be a distinct political movement around 600 EC to make the Jewish religion monotheists. It is interesting in that the name Yahweh was thought to represent four gods El the Father, Asherah the mother, He the son, Anath the daughter. Maybe this is the root of the trinity concept used by modern Christians.
A excellent link about the Canaanite is http://www.mystae.com/restricted/streams/thera/canaan.html

Religion has been and shall continue to remain the opiate of the masses and it does provide the answers for us. Although interfaith conflict separates mankind, faith is the resin which keeps these fragmented groups unified. Barring the scientific facts of creation; the wisdom of the elders or the traditional sentiments of the patriarchs, there is still no sound basis for a single unifying fully-fledged dogma for all people to embrace. Man has evolved into a creature with aspirations, and with the strength of will to question that which he does not understand. Our quest for knowledge, spawned by our liberation has motivated us to seek answers to questions our ancestors have pondered over for centuries. What created the complex process that instills life within every living being? What created conditions suitable for the preponderance of life? With everything around us flourishing and thriving, what divine intervention holds things in place?

Man will always question and will never be content until he has figured out what plagues him. Unfortunately the quest for knowledge and understanding is infinite and there are things in the spiritual world which are beyond human comprehension. That is where faith comes in, it is more than an assurance; a sort of satiated conviction which burns brightly and provides hope. Faith and religion allow you to answer the questions which you don't understand. Faith and spirituality have credence, and it is only once you have searched deep within yourself, once you have been tested to your limits, after you have toiled through immeasurable anguish or experienced true bliss that you can appreciate that something divine is within every one of us, and all around us.

A word of caution, the suggestion that faith is a blanket solution to everything complex is not the point I wish to drive home. The acquisition of faith is a process in itself, which requires commitment to one's beliefs through trial and error, through persistence and constant questioning. The reason that those with faith in God are content is that their faith restores them and nurtures them when all else seems futile.

Asian
You say that "God is the first cause".& "That's what makes him God!"
Would you care to PROVE to me that God is the first cause please?
You are asking me to have blind faith without any real EVIDENCE.
Perhaps you have a need to hide behind blind faith in order to assuage doubts that your God may not be?

I don't agree but well said Brett. I believe there is no limit to the tool we call science. Not matter what the issue is science will reveal it someday.

One of the great difficulties with this subject is that one has to think about one’s own thinking. How did the idea of God get into your mind?

To illustrate the problem: When we were very young many of us believed in Father Christmas. Adult authorities told us that he existed and we had evidence in the shape of the toys which mysteriously appeared in pillow slips or socks. The idea and image was implanted in our minds. Now, as adults, we have abandoned that belief because further evidence convinced us that we had been mistaken in our interpretation.

Just so with the idea of God and ghosts; the belief was put into our young minds by the grown-ups whom we trusted and so on back through generations.

The value of Frazer’s study in “The Golden Bough” is that it showed that earlier forms of society did not have the image of God which modern day Christians have. They had multiple gods and the very earliest had belief in magic rather than gods. Just as with Father Christmas that’s new evidence. The idea evolved over hundreds of thousands of years.

It would be interesting if those commentators who do not accept the argument in my original article would now put their own interpretation of how the fairly recent idea of a single God got into their mind. After all 2000 years is not long in the time of existence of Homo sapiens.

Excellent article, John, couldn't agree more.
However, I am prepared to accept and respect the fact that others believe differently.
One thing annoys me a little, Brett's assumption that all Christians feel content because their belief in God nurtures and sustains them.
If all Christians are so content, why are some of them so vitriolic when it comes to those who see the world differently? Particularly feminists, gays and supporters of evolution?
Contentment, it seems to me, can shrug off points of view it doesn't agree with, and sees no need to regulate others beliefs and morals.

Brett, it certainly is a problem for me also that so many Christians insist that others need to believe in their God.

My parents were very anti-religion and Tom Paine was my ‘bible’ and I find the idea of the Christian God ludicrous. Is this evidence for John Warren’s thesis?

However, I have to disagree with Kenny that science will eventually reveal all. If randomness or chaos is the underlying cause of life, the universe and everything then there cannot be an explanation and the tool that we are using to understand ‘things’ is cleverly creating (or evolving?) the evidence that ‘explains’ our reality

atheists,agnostics(which means ignorant in latin-I think?)unbelievers, disbelievers,and those of you who have monkeys for first cousins:Stop rubbishing that which you know nothing about-Christianity.Also would you stop knocking and trying to explain why we believe what you don't and at present can't understand or accept!-Christianity! You say all the proof is in the THEORY-that's spelled T-H-E-O-R-Y of evolution this idea HASN'T nor can it be proved, if you say it can be you would be telling lies and you all KNOW IT. The faith of an evolutionist is a lot stronger than the faith of a Christian. John W why does a cretin and dribbling idiot like me believe in a God that I can't see, taste or feel,and never have. One way and there are many others, is I look at the heavens which is endless. These same heavens are so well run, so absolutely & totally precise that we, man, can rely completely on it and we can send spaceships into space and know, unless they break down, that they will-ASSUREDLY- arrive at a certain location. ALL orbits are completely accurate and precise and REMAIN so. So please stop denegrating us Believers and cease saying that we are all denegrating you PLEASE! Regards, numbat
PS. Many of us know more and have read & studied more about the THEORY! that's THEORY!of evolution than many of you evolutionists

Numbat
Internet Etiquette 101
1. Typing in full capitals is considered the written equivalent to shouting and is actually banned from some internet forums. I know you are not the only one but would appreciate the courtesy of lower case.
2. We monkey cousins are free to discuss religion if we choose - note that I said 'discuss' not 'denigrate' which is simply your interpretation.
3. If you believe in a god - that's fine just don't get so upset when others don't believe as you do.
4. This article is a well reasoned consideration of why human beings developed religion.
5. Many non religious people have studied religion and come from intensely religious back grounds, that is they are very well versed in religion.
6. Physical evidence exists for evolution - there is no evidence at all for the idea of creation.

Not that I particularly want to legitimize numbat's last post, but I would like to clarify for others, as best I can, exactly what the "theory of evolution" refers to.

In general speech a theory is a mere hypothesis, whereas in science it refers to a falsifiable explanation of data, backed up by scientific evidence. The theory of evolution then, is about explaining how evolution works, particularly how it worked on Earth and it seeks to explain how all the evidence for evolution fits together. Likewise, the theory of gravity is meant to explain how gravity works; there is much more evidence and consensus for the general validity of the theory of evolution than the theory of gravity. Scientific theories are never proven and science does not rely on faith since it makes no unequivocal claims. Science does not assume a purely materialistic existence, but it can only consider things that are part of (and thus can interact with) this universe.

In addition to the theory of evolution, there is the fact that evolution occurs and the scientific fact that evolution brought about the species we see today. Comparing that to gravity, there is the fact that gravity exists and the scientific fact that gravity is what keeps us on the planet. Scientific facts are just data supported by thorough evidence or experiment.

Of course Frazer was quite wrong about all early religions being animistic. He probably got the idea from E.B. Tylor. And developmental theories of this and that were all the rage way back then.

There's a great deal of evidence supporting the idea that the oldest religions were all monotheistic. Polytheism and animism might well be called the religious expression of devolved cultures.

But the thing I really wanted to point out is that this insistence on matter and nothing but matter runs into a major brick wall in relation to some very interesting near death experiences that have been reported and that cannot in any way, shape or form be attributed to nutrient starvation in the brain. People have reported on things like conversations that took place in corridors far away from where their bodies were lying as health care people worked to save them. One person talked about a red shoe on the hospital roof that was subsequently discovered to be there.

If I were a betting person I would bet that our materialist devotees will pooh pooh these reports. Most likely that would be because they have an emotional attachment to materialism. Most likely that would be because there's considerable satisfaction in regarding oneself as the god of one's own life, able to decide right and wrong, believing that death is the end of everything and that, therefore, there will be no consequences for anything done, or chosen, in this life

Specific replies:

To David: My reference to ”endlessly interpreting ..words” was meant to be more than a flourish. Christians take the words of the Bible as their foundation. The argument between homosexual-supporting Christians and their opponents seems to me to be reduced to each side offering different interpretations of what is written in that Bible. The argument about the ordination of women does, in the same way, reduce to a battle of meanings of words. And each of the arguments arise because both homosexuals and women are playing a more forceful (demanding) part in society.
My reference to Aslan in the mirror was meant to make the point that his/her birth, development and death was an example of evolution just as the birth, development and death of stars is evolution in action. One can’t demonstrate anything by evolution, only understand things that start, develop and die by recognizing that they are undergoing a process of evolution. I don’t have “faith” in evolution, the concept just helps me to understand how nature works.

To jrm: I certainly don’t pooh-pooh all the startling reports of people thinking that they had had a near-death experience or seen aliens or heard a supernatural voice. My only question is whether that experience was the result of something which had taken place outside their brain or inside their brain. As for the oldest religions all being monotheistic, I don’t think even the Christian religion has solved the problem of God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Ghost.

JRM wrote-There's a great deal of evidence supporting the idea that the oldest religions were all monotheistic. Polytheism and animism might well be called the religious expression of devolved cultures.

Got some evidence to back that up?

JRM it isn't an emotional attachment that pooh-poohs such reports just we have a higher standard when it comes to objective evidence. Do you believe that that testimony by that crossover ‘psychic’ guy is reliable evidence for the afterlife?

Also you must do better than straw man ad Hom’s to make your case, as I’m yet to see any evidence that the gaols are full of those amoral atheists who just love to rape, murder and pillage.

"My only question is whether that experience was the result of something which had taken place outside their brain or inside their brain."

Oh, get real! Please! If there is nothing but matter how could anything be occurring in someone's brain when the thing occurring is far removed from their body and, therefore, is far removed from any sensation that their body might have perceived even if nutrient deprived? If the occurrence is real then, as I implied, or maybe said, people who refuse to accept that it occurred have to be emotionally (irrationally) attached to materialism and will believe anything they want to believe as long as it supports their beliefs. I'm perfectly willing to say the same about Christian traditionalists, Jewish traditionalists and any other sort of traditionalist. But being a Christian traditionalist is very different to being born again. Been there. Done that. Know the difference. If you don't know the difference then that's your experience of life and your choice. Maybe it's time for you to learn and choose differently.

And why do we born again Christians think all youse mob need to be saved? Well, that's because we care about you and don't want you to die eternally when it's not necessary. It's not that we want you to behave in any particular (non-smoking, non-drinking, non-dancing, non-card-playing) way in this life, despite what the Baptists might say (that's a joke). We just want you to live. We want to enjoy your company when we move into eternity ourselves. God doesn't want you to be separated from him eternally. We don't want you to be separated from God and from us eternally. Why would you choose to be separated when it means your end? You will have to answer that.

JRM a hearty 'amen' to all that.

The idea that 'religion' is nothing more than chemical rushes of the brain is kinda weak. Without mentioning a host of mentionable material, I'll just try to respond to a couple of comments from above.

MOLLY, we don't INSIST (shouts :) that all people believe in 'our' God. We proclaim Christ, and whosoever 'will' may come. Its as simple as that. We are definitely adamant that salvation is found in no other than Christ, but u can just give us a smiling pat and send us on our blinkered and narrow minded way, if u feel this is something you cannot accomodate in your own heart, it goes with the territory brudda.

For those who say 'prove' this or that. It won't come, because to be truthful, if it did, you would have NO OPTION (oops...shouts again :) but to give your whole life over to God, no excuses at all. There is enuf 'proof' out there, and in there, but it won't be seen by an unredeemed heart or mind. (yes, u can yell 'brainwashed' if u like :)

MORGAN (cheeky look on me now) sure 37,000 may be typical of a footy crowd, but do they all vote the same way ? :))) and no, I don't regard such experiences as validation of truth, I regard them as CELebrations of it. Positive secular experiences DO give us a bit of a buzz, but having been in 'that' mould for quite a while in my past, I can safely say they lack the confident core satisfaction of heart that knowing Christ gives. Secular positive experiences mean I'd always be hearing that niggling little voice "what'ts it all about... Alfie"


Kenny, come home mate, out of that cold wasteland of whatever it is your reading

I do not think that seeing that religion and everything else results from brain chemistry is ‘kinda weak’ at all. I find it tremendously exciting, satisfying and awe-inspiring. So much food for brain chemistry to get to work on with that idea.

You might not insist, but there are other Christians who do insist and who would like to force their standards on the rest of us. Your comment about the voting power of your church seems to me to signify that you also will insist that I do things your way. For example, I suspect that you would vote to deny me an abortion.

I do, whenever possible, just pat Christians on the back and send them on your way, but you would be amazed at how rude, insensitive and insistent some of them are and how difficult it is to ‘get rid off’ evangelising little old ladies without being quite rude oneself.

I can accommodate you in my heart, even sad bitter ones like Aslan and Numbat, but not in my mind. My rationality tells me that religion has been one of the major problems in the past and will be again if we do not keep an eye on your well-meaning fervour to ‘save us from our selves’.

To JRM, I am quite happy to die eternally. If your God does not want me as I am then I do not want to be with him (or her or it?) for eternity. Personally, I do not find immortality to be a desirable state. There is a time to simply not be.

JRM wrote "...despite what the Baptists might say (that's a joke)."

This is a perfect example of the kind of thinking that drives agnostics (like myself) to distraction. Why do a Baptist's beliefs have any less legitimacy than your own? They are based on the same evidence. As far as I can tell, the only difference between a cult and a religion is the number of people you can convince.

BOAZ_David wrote "MORGAN (cheeky look on me now) sure 37,000 may be typical of a footy crowd, but do they all vote the same way ?"

I realise this was said in jest, but it still frightens me for the simple reason that it is (to a degree) true. The thought of somebody else's religion-driven party gaining legislative control of my life choices...

BOAZ_David, JRM is this the best you can do at least the Catholics have some intellectual rigor.

Always amusing to see the various Christian sects saying-
“ no no we have the truth you are deceived by the devil”
“ no no we have it you haven’t opened your heart to the true teaching of Christ.”
“ Believe us”
“,no, no don’t listen to them they are in bed with the devil”

Those of you that rely on revelation and internal mystical confirmation fail to see that you have no way of telling even if there was a true teaching or revelation, that yours would be it and not delusion like all the other Christian sects. Not to mention all the other religious faiths.

Boaz you say the evidence is out there the Muslim would say the same thing, so convert now or go to hell. Who’s to say you haven’t a unredeemed heart or mind that stops you from seeing Islam as the ‘true faith’?

Boaz-
(.yes, u can yell 'brainwashed' if u like :)

Well the shoe fits, but I prefer extreme confirmation bias myself, as you are incapable of changing your mind.

OTOH if a 100m tall God avatar came down and said hey I’m God I’m pretty sure I’d believe him as would most if not all atheists.

But again who’s to say it would be your ’God’.

In response to Enaj:

The irony of your comment regarding my analysis of this discussion is that you and not I, have incorrectly assumed that I refered to Christians in my article. Kindly read through my neutral take on the matter and you will note that there is absolutely no mention whatsoever of any religious denomination, let alone Christianity. Being of the Jewish faith, I would not dare to comment or ridicule the faith of my own or other peoples' beliefs.

"One thing annoys me a little, Brett's assumption that all Christians feel content because their belief in God nurtures and sustains them."

Thank you for your insight anyway, Brett.

To jrm: Your “Oh, get real! Please!” is very dismissive of a central point in this discussion which is: How does our mind have all its thoughts, memories and images? I accept that it is the result of the activity of the billions of cells in the brain. If you have a damaged brain you will have damaged thoughts. If you have no brain you have no thoughts. There are many scientists who are trying to unravel what goes on. I have tried to explain that the thoughts come from the external world we live in. The belief in spiritual beings which many people have now is because the nature of those images has evolved over many thousands of years just as the nature of the external society has evolved.

You and others obviously don’t accept that. It would help if you would explain how you think your thoughts occur if it is not from the “matter” in the brain.

When humans with the aid of computers create thinking,reasoning,emotional robots, our own importance in terms closeness to god will be brought into question.Will the robots now have a soul and thus achieve immortality?

Molly, I would vote according to concience, which takes into account the amazing dimensions of a new life growing in the womb. I would MUCH prefer to see that conceived child born into the world and make some childless couple incredibly happy for a lifetime, than flush a mass of wrecked human tissue down the toilet simply because some dear soul decided that this new life was an intrusion into her priority list and that suddenly the man who's life is also in that child is invisible or not relevant. So, if that vote would deny you an abortion, sorry but yes thats how it would be.
The greens policy before the last election included some stuff about making it compulsory for medical facilities to offer abortion including religious ones, because of discrimination issues. So THEIR vote, would have forced my mob to committ what we regard as murder.
I have little sympathy for the 'your imposing your beliefs on us' crowd, because that is always a 2 way street. We get it every day.

JOHN you appear to have ignored so much in your attempt to 'fit' religion into your theory. The resurrection of Christ and the conversion of Saul may not seem very important to you, but last time I checked, those events had sufficient impact on history that we now calculate our DATES from those 'insignificant' events. Its 2005 years from ?.. yes, from those external events, which you may well try to 'squeeze' into your brain chem/evolutionary theory but the image of sqaure pegs in round holes comes to mind.
I could woffle on about personal experiences, but as soon as one is removed by just one degree from the actual event, the tendency is to be cynical and skeptical right ? You are relying on 'eye witness' testimony. So, I won't waste my time.

Brett, ur Jewish ? awesome. You have an amazing heritage if you are decended from one of the tribes. Cohens are and Levi's. I'm going to VCAT to get a book by Sasha Cohen banned (gospel according to Ali G)

I've been away for a few days.

I note that noone has yet explained how self-replicating organisms first evolved.

Evolution is a non-starter - it is pseudoscientific nonsense.
It is a fairy-tale for grown-ups.

John Warren wrote:
"My reference to Aslan in the mirror was meant to make the point that his/her birth, development and death was an example of evolution just as the birth, development and death of stars is evolution in action. One can’t demonstrate anything by evolution, only understand things that start, develop and die by recognizing that they are undergoing a process of evolution."

What total rubbish! Organism growth is not evolution! And it is certainly no proof that "simple" organisms evolved into more complex ones. The genetic code in my first 2 cells is no different to what it is today.

Warren writes:
"How does our mind have all its thoughts, memories and images? I accept that it is the result of the activity of the billions of cells in the brain. If you have a damaged brain you will have damaged thoughts."

If all thoughts are simple electronic pulses and/or chemical reactions then how do you account for morality? In other words, how do we determine what is right and wrong? If my brain's impulses tell me that rape is OK then what right do you or anyone else have to tell me its wrong, or to punnish me?

While it's quite entertaining reading the godbotherers' continuing efforts to fit the square peg of superstition into the round hole of reason, I really must offer a simple refutation of one of Boaz's silly statements from his last post. As I recall, the scurrilous twaddle he presents as Greens abortion policy was based on a well-discredited article in one of the tabloid rags, which was taken up gleefully by Family First and further distorted from numerous pulpits around the country. Those people seem to have problems discerning fact from fiction in all things, it seems.

For the record, the Australian Greens policy with respect to abortion is:

"The Australian Greens will work towards:

...3.15 repealing all laws which restrict the right of women to choose abortion and which restrict access to services

3.16 ensuring access to legal, affordable, humane and safe abortion for all women, and provision of counselling pre- and post-termination."

Nothing there about forcing anybody to do anything.

Morgan

Thanx Morgan, I accept that mild rebuke :) and I did look for it in the greens policy statements but ran out of time, and went with the assumption. I was wrong. Pretty rare in my case not to have solid facts behind my woffling. As I see your statement of their policy, I can see where the story came from. "Repeal any laws which restrict access", could conceivably mean that discrimination based on religious sensibilities would be illegal, hence the 'forcing' story eh ?

But as for John Warrens approach to our brains and existence. I seriously doubt that he has considered the moral implications of it. i.e. that there can 'be' no such idea as morality with any more force than "we think this is a good idea".

But if that were the only reason for having faith in Christ, it would be rather stupid and naive. The question would always be there in the heart "I know this is just a story, but its convenient and comforting to believe it". This is the point Paul makes when he says "If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we, of all men are most to be pitied". This is rather forceful and confrontational to the 'comfort religion' mentality. His reasoning here is that we are in a pitiful state, because our faith is based on the resurrection of Christ, which if just a myth, makes us a pack of dills in the extreme :)
He knew the risen Lord, encountered him so forcefully that he turned from being an SS style mass murderer to the one who wrote in
1 Corinthians 13
---------------------------------------------------------------------
1 If I speak in human and angelic tongues 2 but do not have love, I am a resounding gong or a clashing cymbal.
2
And if I have the gift of prophecy and comprehend all mysteries and all knowledge; if I have all faith so as to move mountains but do not have love, I am nothing
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Sometimes we speak to win an argument, rather than win a soul. Forgive us.

Boaz
But as for John Warrens approach to our brains and existence. I seriously doubt that he has considered the moral implications of it. i.e. that there can 'be' no such idea as morality with any more force than "we think this is a good idea".

Even if John hasn't atheists deal with this every day yet again do you see them running around doing anything they want? So much for needing a 'God' to act morally.

Nor can you come up for any substantive reasons why your 'God' is the real deal and not a myth like all the others.

BTW I don't expect you to reply you don't have an answer anyway.

Since we already know that a myraid of metal states and functions have their origins in the physiology of the brain, from memory to emotions it is not a big leap to include religious experience as well.

Nor does a materialistic account detract from the richness or meaning we can give our experiences, it just gives it its proper context and those of us that can deal with it just go on enjoying our lives.

Neohuman,

Glad you agree that Warren hasn't thought about the moral implications. You are right that atheists/materialists don't go around doing what they want. They are of course being inconsistent. So why is that?

Answer: Because their materialist worldview is unliveable. It leads to absurdity.

You wrote:
"Nor does a materialistic account detract from the richness or meaning we can give our experiences, it just gives it its proper context and those of us that can deal with it just go on enjoying our lives."

So you don't see any problem with a paedophile gaining a richness of meaning from his experience of molesting a child if he can deal with it and go on enjoying molesting children?

Aslan it seems you have quite limited knowledge of evolutionary process’s . I could try to explain them to you but you have also displayed your unwillingness to entertain any idea that isn’t centred around your religious belief. So is it really worth the bother?
You said “I note that noone has yet explained how self-replicating organisms first evolved.” Guess what the reasons I have not tried to answer this question is very simply we simply don’t know. We don’t have a time machine and the actual evidence of how it actually happened is probably long destroyed. The best scientist can do in this area is demonstrate how it might happen. That said it has little to do with the validity of evolution. 350 words prevents me from going into detail her so I’ll give you a couple of links.
Evolution http://tccsa.tc/articles/evolutionist_view_max.html
Creation http://www.creationists.org/

By having a good look around these sites you will easily see which group is evidence based and which is not. I think the people who are attracted to creationist ideas are motivated by the search for “why” rather then the how. Creationist are not able to cope with the idea that there is not any why at all.
I’ll ask Aslan this what evidence for evolution would he consider conclusive proof.

Whoops my evolution links fell off.

try these

http://www.infidels.org/index.shtml
http://www.discord.org/~lippard/hnta.html
as well as any Uni site you care to look at.

Neohuman asked for some evidence to back up my claim that there is a great deal of evidence to support the idea that the oldest religions were all monotheistic.

A good overview is at http://custance.org/old/evol/2ch1/2ch1.html

Then there are books such as Don Richardson's, "Eternity in Their Hearts" or Wilhelm Schmidt's, "The Origin and Growth of Religion: Facts and Theories".

And no. I don't believe that what "that crossover ‘psychic’ guy" says is reliable evidence for the afterlife. However the fact that the apostles accepted death or exile rather than deny Jesus' resurrection is good evidence that the resurrection did occur and hence that there is an afterlife.

To David Boaz who asks for forgiveness, I can only say that I do not judge, so you do not need my forgiveness.

Perhaps you judge others and then patronisingly forgive them? Perhaps you believe that your conscience is superior to mine because of your self-serving belief that you have found the 'truth'?

Re the abortion issue, this is not a forum for that so all I can say is, I’m perfectly willing to give you, and your loving couple, any fertilised egg I don’t want, but I’ll not create a life and then give it away.

You do know that abortion is very seldom a choice of convenience and that by making them illegal you will not prevent women finding ways to prevent producing a life that their conscience tells them would ruin other lives.

To pretend that abortions are simply for the mother's convenience is to ignore the pain and desperation that leads women to deny themselves the bliss that comes from a new baby. It belittles women and is not a Christian thing to do.

I thought only God can judge and forgive? Do you need to ask yourself more often ‘what would Jesus do’?

Having read most of the discussion here, it's as i dreaded it would be, a gigantic boxing ring with all sorts of bods slugging it out on every available inch of floor space, and very little in the way of expert technique on display. Well, as long as you're all enjoying yourselves...
A couple of general points to note. The Christians or the generally religious are very fond of saying that belief in evolution (and indeed in science generally) is based on faith - 'a fairy tale for grown ups'. I presume this is because faith plays such a large part in their lives that they see it everywhere, and that what scientists would describe as evidence plays such a small part in their lives that they see it nowhere. Most of what they say can be safely ignored, as science continues to develop and refine theories that are proving ever more effective and fruitful, and providing an increasingly comprehensive and integrated understanding of the cosmos, regardless of the snipings of the faithful.
It's only natural that science should try to understand and explain religion from a neurophysiological perspective, but i think psychological explanations should have pride of place here. I personally think the persistence of religion has much to do with fear of and a desire to transcend death, and an egoistic desire to see ourselves as necessary rather than contingent beings. We create gods so that they will in turn bestow 'god-hood' upon us - eternal life and all that. I also suspect human religion will always prevail over human reason, for the human ego is more powerful than the laws of physics.

For Aslan Pt1
>Glad you agree that Warren hasn't thought about the moral implications.

Didn’t say he hasn’t, it is just that he hasn’t raised it in the article. What is your stance John?

>You are right that atheists/materialists don't go around doing what they want. They are of course being inconsistent. So why is that? Answer: Because their materialist worldview is unliveable. It leads to absurdity.

Ever heard of the Socrates: Euthyphro not even as clear cut for you as you would think even with a deity.

BTW I confess that I’m a ethical relativist and do in fact think morality is mostly a matter of opinion and linked more to desires in a social contract situation than to some objective meta-ethical standard. Having said that those of us who don’t believe in a divine moral law giver have enough mental capacity to evaluate what is harmful, combined with a desire not to cause harm and think this is enough to give a general guide on what not to do in a social environment. So there is no inconsistency rather I would say given the tract record of your ‘God’ we are in fact morally superior to it. Many of the things it has done would have a member of our society in gaol for life

MOLLY .. when we who seek to follow Christ descend into winning an argument, it does Christ no good, thats my point. In that mode, we don't really represent 'him'. There is a story in the Old Testament which is most instructive. Moses was told by God, to 'tap' a rock with his rod, and water would come out. He did this, but another time, his emotions got the better of him, and he berated the Israelites, and WHACKED the rock :) "I'll show you mob !" kind of thing.
There is a fine line between passionately and honestly arguing a point, and 'whacking' the opponent.

Giving up fertilized eggs ? well, u probably already know my feeling about that. But a fertilized egg is a person in waiting, who will one day DESPERATELY want to know his biological connections in this world, and for goodness sake, the thought that I would be confronted by a son or daughter who I'd given up as an 'egg' is quite scary. Personally, I don't think I'd really like that as my heritage.

LUIGI its a bit difficult to put a heap of complex science into 350 words mate. Ur too dismissive. Links can be helpful, but when u make comments like that, my mind goes immediately to some of the great minds of history, who began their quest to disprove the resurrection, and ended up as Christians. Malcolm Muggeridge, C.S. Lewis, Simon Greenleaf (Harvard Law school) to name a few 'oldies but goodies'.
You seem to assume that science 'rejects' God, but I suggest that science can neither confirm or deny God, because science is an ongoing work in progress.

NEO u asked my favorite question "Why is 'your' God the real deal" ?
May I refer you to this ? Have a read, then get back to me.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2015;&version=64;

I'd like to pose a question or two to those good Christians here who decry 'moral relativism' as some reason to adhere to their particular arbirary supernatural dogma:

Aren't the Christian proponents of the war in Iraq engaging in 'moral relativism' when they decide to contravene one of their fundamental 'commandments' - "thou shall not kill" - as they drop bombs and shoot people in their efforts to assert control? Why is it OK to drop a bomb that you know will likely kill innocent civilians, no matter how just and noble you think your cause is? What don't you understand about "thou shall not kill"?

I think I might even be morally relativist enough to suggest that in that way at least I might be a better 'Christian' than one who goes to war and drops bombs on people or shoots them - despite the fact that I don't believe in god/s, except as constructs of the marvellous human imagination.

Ain't life grand?

Morgan

Good question and well put morganzola.

Of course the contradictions of Christians on these moral issues are endless, but their 'out' is always that they are imperfect beings, 'sinners' who strive more or less vainly for the light. Apparently their god tells them what to do or what not to do, but being mere selfish nasty humans, they find it impossible to obey god's teaching. This of course merely shows the wide gap betewwen humans and their god, and makes the god that much more eminently worthy of worship. Basically, they're worshipping their own impossible ideals - more egotism, in a roundabout way.

Someone mentioned Muggeridge as a great mind. I made a brief study of the fellow a while back - brief because he didn't repay extensive analysis. In none of his writings will you find anything remotely resembling an argument, there is nothing but opinion, and a certain amount of wit, if you think mouthing off at homosexuals, scientists, liberals and 'bluestockings' amusing. Read any few pages of him, and you'll soon have his measure - the rest is just repetition. He's deservedly forgotten today. Anyone who considers such a man 'a great mind' is badly in need of an education.

Kenny,

Let me assure you that I know far more about evolution than you will ever know.

Finally, you admit that scientists do not know how self-replicating organisms came into being.

You wrote: "The best scientist can do in this area is demonstrate how it might happen."

In other words, we'll dream up some "just...so" story. In fact, in the case of self-replicating organisms you can't even do that because the whole scenario is physically and logically impossible. Self-replicating organisms are irreducibly complex.

So tell me: how is this kind of explanation any different from saying "God did it"? At least saying "God did it" is logically coherent.

For a theory to be scientific it must have empirical evidence supporting it, it must explain relevant observations, it must make predictions, and it must be falsifiable.

However, no suggested evolutionary process can create new genetic information. No information creating mutation has been observed. Evoloution cannot explain the gaps in the fossil record or the suggested evolution of things like the avian lung or the human eye etc. Evolutionary processes cannot make predictions and is therefore not falsifiable. ie. evolution is not science - it is ideology. Indeed, it is a religious ideology because you need faith (and lots of it!) to believe it.

If you want to evaluate creation science then see the following:
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles_chron.htm
http://www.icr.org/research/
http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/index.html
http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/qa.asp

For a refutation of Ed Max's tripe see:
http://www.trueorigins.org/spetner2.asp

You ask: "what evidence for evolution would he consider conclusive proof?"

Well, you cannot conclusively prove evolution because it is not repeatable. However, to make it plausible you have to:
1. Explain/demonstrate how self-replicating organisms can come into being. Neither you nor any links posted have done this.
2. Point to a mutation that has caused a net increase in genetic information.

Luigi,

Thankyou for sharing your views on science and religion. However, since you have offered to argument or support for your view, I see no reason why we should pay any attention to it. Simply asserting one’s view does not make it true.

Aslan - none so blind as those who will not see. A number of links have been posted providing logical and reasonable proof of that which you ask regarding sexual evolution and mutation. I doubt you have bothered to read any of them and even if you have you clearly remain blind.
I honestly don't care what or whom you worship I do however, resent your dogmatic, judgemental and dismissive view of any who present a different point of view. For example the manner in which you dismissed Luigi "Thankyou for sharing your views on science and religion. However, since you have offered to argument or support for your view, I see no reason why we should pay any attention to it. Simply asserting one’s view does not make it true."

This is a forum of opinion - Intelligent well reasoned opinion such as Luigi's is valued but you won't be happy until everyone agrees with everything you have to say - well it ain't gonna happen.

I find formal religion rigid, arrogant and judgemental and you have demonstrated those negative qualities over and over on this forum. Rather than winning converts you are alienating further those who do not believe in your god.

Goood morning all on this good friday. *smiles* for everyone.
Today is a day when Christians should listen to Tony Campolo's message "Its friday, but Sunnnnnnnndays a comin" its awesome.
http://www.tonycampolo.org/messages.shtml take that link and look for the title among the messages.

MORGAN your question deserves far more than a 350 word answer, as does Luigi's supporting one. Let me at least say, that the War in Iraq is not a monolithic 'Christian' war. There are 2 sides to that coin, and please always remember that the regime they kicked out, was one where the sons of the dictator could randomly select anyone's wife or daughter and use her as a sex toy for as long as the whim attracted him. The idea that you can defeat a militarized monster with kid gloves does not need any further amplification for the idea to be seen as silly.
What you and Luigi are touching on, is the dichotomy and dilemna between to sections of scripture. "Love your enemies" and "The Emporer holds the sword to deter the evil doer" (Romans 13) One point addresses the Individual, the other, the State, which at the time was not Christian. Please also don't regard America as a "Christian" state. It is a secular state which includes a variety of Christians and they from various Traditions and emphases. There was a good Southpark episode a day or 2 ago, which illustrated the USA mentality generally, where they tend to Bomb first and ask questions later.
US generals and military assessors are not neccessarily Christian.
Perhaps we can appeal to 'Do for your brother as you would have him do for you' ? in that if WE were under the domination of a wanna be Saddam lookalike, would we not want someone to save us ? I sure would.
Overall, its not an easy subject, and I'm about out of words.
jdrmot@bigpond.net.au if anyone wants to follow up on this.
And please, no invitations to join the church of Satan, I've already had some of those.

Ringtail, here is a bandaid for your tail :)

Boaz - my tail is just fine thank you. Interesting how you threaten me physically "chomp" and "I'm going to carve you up" - what would Jesus do?
I think he would far more compassionate and understanding than U boaz.

George Bush jnr is a born again christian is he not?

There is good and bad amongst us all regardless of religious belief or lack thereof.

I do believe that formal religion is a great comfort for many - it provides a shield against the unknown, helps to make death a little less fearful. If it gets you through the night, fine. However, there are those of us who can face the unknown and we don't fear death nor do we need the crutch of religion.

Happy Holidays
:)

Thanks Boaz for demonstrating that Christians engage in 'moral relativism' when it suits them, just like everybody else. So are we to take it that it's OK to disregard the commandment "thou shall not kill" when we judge that the end justifies the means?

Does Christianity have any moral absolutes, or are they all as susceptible to subjective interpretation as this fundamental 'commandment' apparently is? In that case, what is it that distinguishes Christianity from any of the plethora of alternative moral codes, both secular and religious, that are available to us?

Morgan

Aslan wrote
So you don't see any problem with a paedophile gaining a richness of meaning from his experience of molesting a child if he can deal with it and go on enjoying molesting children?

While I do take a meta-ethical moral relativistic stance I still have to live within a society whose desires countermand these individuals desires so I don’t see a problem with them being punished from a social contract point of view.

Given your ‘God’ allowed whole tribes to be slaughtered and the virgins given over as sex slaves I’d be more concerned about your ‘Gods’ moral compass than the paedophiles in ours.

Now your turn why is your ‘God’ and or evidence for it any different than the countless others?

Ringtail,

Yes I have read the link regarding sexual evolution. I not only read the Washington Post report but also the original papers in Nature. Did you? I doubt it because these reports dont demonstrate what I asked for.

They merely assert that X and Y chromosomes arose from one pair of autosomes. Female have two Xs; males have X and Y. The authors hypothesise that after X and Y seceded, mutations in genes on Y made it the male-determining chromosome, and the pair began to diverge. Over time Y disintegrated to a shadow of its former self. In turn, X developed a way to silence most of the genes on one of the two Xs in females, so that males and females would essentially have same dosage of gene products. Early in female development, cells randomly choose either the maternal or paternal X to be active X chromosome.

For one, this is a "just...so" story not empirical observation. They did not observe X and Y forming in this way - they have just asserted it.
Secondly, no new genetic information is created. The autosomes already contain all information. Y actually LOST information. X turns parts of itself on/off.
Thirdly, again this does not explain the origin of self-replicating organisms.

Morganzola,

The command you cite from Exodus 20:13 is from the almost 400 year old KJV. It is a poor translation by todays standards. Modern versions like NIV say “You shall not murder.” This is a better rendering of the underlying Hebrew word ratsah which means premeditated murder rather than “kill”. Without exception it refers to intentional, violent murder. It is never used to denote killing animals for food or killing in war. The command does not apply in cases of nighttime home invasion (Exodus 22:2). Nor does it apply to accidental killings or cases of manslaughter (Deut 19:5), or to execution of murderers by state (Gen 9:6).

Therefore this is not a global prohibition against all killing as you suppose, and so Christians are not guilty of moral relativism as you claim.

To Boaz: We are all taught morality, which is the rules of social behaviour, by the society into which we are born just as we are taught the language of that society. What is moral for one society can be different for another; there are no absolute, unchanging rules. For example it was not long ago when slavery was “normal” in the cotton and tobacco areas of the United States. We, in Australia now regard slavery as abhorrent, immoral. There are societies in which one man can marry many women. They don’t question its morality, we do.

If you care to put “egyptian book dead ten commandments” into Google’s search line you will find that our modern ten rules of morality were foreshadowed by Egyptian rules by more than a thousand years. These were in the form of confessions which had to be made before a panel of 12 judges (shades of apostles?) after death and passing through the underworld.

To Aslan: The Macquarie Dictionary definition of “evolution” is “1. any process of formation or growth; development:….”.

In my example you grew and developed. You did, indeed, evolve. Stars and the Earth have evolved. That’s why many scientists say evolution is a fact, it is undeniable. Darwin’s great contribution was to explain, with his Theory of Natural Selection, how the evolution of biological organisms, from the simplest worms to human beings, could come about. Astronomers and physicists try to explain how stars evolve from gas to solid bodies and finally massive destructive explosions. That process of evolution is a fact also.

David I do not understand what you mean by your response to my offer to give you any unfertilized eggs. Did you understand what I meant by the offer? For me the egg is not 'a life'; for you it is. That is fine with me. I respect your decision. You need to respect mine.

Ask yourself, would Jesus have prevented me from having an abortion or would be have left it up to my conscience? Surely it is up to God to judge my actions, not you? There is no commandment that thou must prevent others from taking 'a life', is there?

If you are confident that your God exists, then he will judge me (he tells you that vengence is his) and you have no business voting to impose your personal beliefs on to me. No business as a Christian to prevent others doing things that do not in any way impact on your own life.

I think you are missing the whole point of Christianity, which is a personal belief system. It is for you to use to develop in yourself the qualities that you attribute to Christ and God - not for you to insist that others accept your truth.

I suggest that if you were a true Christian, you would be humbled by the difficulty of interpreting the inconsistences and paradoxes in the word of God and you certainly would not be so arrogant as to think that you have the answers for all of us.

Back in the 50's and 60's we experienced fear and damnation as the tool of control,used by the christian faith.Now we have the caring ,sharing and loving god because people would be no longer conned by such a rudimentary attempt at control by fear.Well, which is it?
We don't have to believe in any god to be worth while beings.Your religion is what you try hardest at, to improve yourself and those whom you influence."Belief "doesn't make you a better person.
The religious right is only coming to the fore because many think that they have the monopoly on morality.We all need morality since it is the glue that commits human relationships to a position of trust,because without it, all the laws in the world will not make our economy or society work.
The notion of the existence of god is childish postulation.We will never know until we die.What really matters is the reality that confronts us daily.Those who get solace from religion are welcome to it,but don't try to impose it on others

Oh, I see now, Aslan. It's a question of semantics, of the translation of ancient Hebrew word, which "without exception.. refers to intentional, violent murder".

From that perspective, couldn't one argue that other forms of 'killing' are also OK too - like in the cases of euthanasia or abortion (if one accepts that a foetus is a person)? On the other hand, I don't suppose the myths and legends of a bunch of neolithic Semitic goat herders have too much to say about those issues.

This of course emphasises the hypocrisy of those who claim that their anthology of folk tales is the only Truth, while simultaneously playing word games in order to justify what is in reality just another religious ideology.

I prefer the approach of science, under which it is possible to not only accept that there is much we do not yet know, but also sets out a rational program for acquiring new knowledge - which after all provides the context, if not the basis, for any form of morality.

There is a huge difference between scientific hypotheses and 'just so' stories. It seems to me that the latter term would be apposite for that anthology of fairy stories around which Christians and others construct ideology under the guise of faith.

As I've said before, we had the Enlightenment centuries ago. Let's not go back to the Dark Ages.

Morgan

Morgan, Christianity has absolute truth, principles, yes. They are 2.
Love God, Love your neighbour. Those 2 truths are illustrated in numerous ways through the unfolding of Salvation history in the Bible.
They are also 'defined' which is an important point. Jesus, when asked 'who is my neighbour' responded with the story of the good samaritan, which according to the Jews did not exist (a Samaritan who was 'good') Jesus knew how to make a point by choosing the characters skillfully.

RINGTAIL. "locks on to the remaining stump of the ever shortening tail" hehe...
I dont remember threatening to 'carve u up' err can u cut and paste please ? I only mentioned 'chomp ur tail and make u into roadkill' I thought.. but then pre-alzheimers is probably getting to me by now at 56 :)
But hey.. all such things are meant to inject an element of humor and light heartedness, not to make you cringe or take seriously.

Comparing me unfavorably with the Lord Jesus is a good thing, it reminds me of my prime qualification to be 'christian' i.e. a sinner in need of grace.
"Formal religion" hmm lets refer to Jesus, he went about with a band of 12,from place to place,teaching them that the kingdom of God is 'within' you. Repentance and Forgiveness, are the 2 messages of that Kingdom, and the joy, peace and freedom that come with them.
We who have experienced 'Him' also enjoy gathering with others and sharing that joy. Sadly, human nature being what it is, when gatherings become large, they need to be managed, served, led, and this produces both the best and worst u see in the Christian camp today. When in doubt, refer User Manual and make ones own decision :)

ARJAY the emphasis placed on the Christian message will vary according to social conditions. Threats of hell were used to 'control' yes, and also to 'save'. It depended on the speakers motives. The gospel is 1/ Repent, 2/ be Forgiven.
3/ Rejoice in New life under the Lordship of Christ.

Boaz wrote-
NEO u asked my favorite question "Why is 'your' God the real deal" ?
May I refer you to this ? Have a read, then get back to me.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1%20corinthians%2015;&version=64;

Boaz unfortunately few people other than fundamentalists believe the bible can be used as a accurate historical document or that the gospels were written by the apostles, so using the resurrection as a your proof gets you nowhere. Do you accept the eyewitness accounts of Muhammad ascending to Heaven from the Dome of the Rock? As mentioned earlier there is strong evidence that the Jews were just mountain Canaanites no exodus or walls tumbling down at Jericho all myths so your faith doesn’t even get off first base.

Through your severe confirmation bias you accept weak evidence as proof of the veracity of your faith but deny similar evidence from other faiths.

I've not posted in days, but i note that Aslan says I've no evidence for my remarks - about the psychology of religious belief - so i should be ignored. Of course my remarks were speculative, designed to stimuate reflection. I think he (i'm surely safe in assuming Aslan's a he!) simply picked up on the evidence-word to mask his own faith-based beliefs.

I was going to make some points about the broader definition of evolution, but the author's already done that. Remember that the slow process of discarding creationism began with a realisation that the earth itself had evolved over millions of years. Analysis of the fossil record, in terms of dating and comparison, made it clear some process of evolution was involved. Not the building of a fairy tale, rather the result of people puzzling over what could account for a growing body of data that couldn't fit with previous accounts. One has to realise the implications of rejecting evolution. One has to account for the abundance of species, and relations between them, in a non-evolutionary way. Presumably this means the old fixity-of-species idea (if there are other alternatives to an evolutionary process, let me know). This idea is as completely at odds with the data as the flat earth theory. But many theists will continue to cling to creationism. There's more at stake, for the status of their gods.

Again, to Aslan. You mix your defence of Christianity with much derision and aggressiveness. This definitely detracts from the pleasure of debate, but attests to your level of desperation and defensiveness. You also seem to be pinning your hopes on problems with the origin of life itself. It's not clear that Darwin's theory of evolution needs to account for this, though Darwin did say that a more comprehensive theory should account for it, according to Anthony Flew. It's an area worth exploring, though any connection between an understanding of how life sparked into being (if that's the right metophorical way of thinking about it) and a belief in a Christian god is surely tenuous.

NEO... I fully appreciate your position on the document I cited. Perhaps u might find a thorough study of both the 'critical' approach and the conservative approach to the evidence (which is the letter itself) rewarding from an academic point of view.
Here is one link which I've not gone thru any more than enuf to observe that it is highly academic (a dissertation) and shows some of the textual issues. I'd say this one is more on the liberal side of the spectrum.
http://bible.ovc.edu/terry/dissertation/1_3-textbas.htm
Then, on the conservative side is:
http://www.worldinvisible.com/library/ffbruce/ntdocrli/ntdocont.htm

Now, regarding the 'eye witness accounts of Mohammeds ascension'...
umm can u provide source ? The only thing I can find are references to his dream about it. Absolutely zero about any 'eye witness' accounts. Your a worry :)

Luigi, perhaps Aslan is responding in kind to the likes of Kenny ? who can be most irritating at times (sorry kenny :) There is always the temptation for our human nature to want to 'win an argument' we are competitive. But deep down, the one we wish to glorify is Christ.
If we fail to bring glory to Him, then its sad, and underlines our need of daily grace. The Christian life is a moment by moment relationship, sometimes we are not walking as we should, and need either the still small voice of the Holy Spirit or the harshly shouted rebuke from 'the world' to remind us.
No matter how 'we' come across, pls never use that as a reason not to seek after "Him". I've seen the most hopeless presentations of the gospel bring the most amazing results. Mahatma Ghandi rightly observed that if Christians just lived as Jesus taught, All India would be Christian. Clearly, he understood about Jesus.

John,

The Macquarie definition is obviously not what creationists and evolutionists mean when discussing this so you are being disingenuous.

Morgan,

Yes it is a question of semantics. The Hebrew word "ratsah" means "murder". The Hebrew word "harag" is the normal word for "kill". Murder is always wrong. Abortion and euthenasia are intentional premeditated acts of killing and therefore constitute murder. Killing, however, is justified in specific circumstances listed in Scripture eg. capital punnishment, war, self-defence etc.
ie. Christianity does employ moral relativism. (thats not to deny that some Christians occasionally adopy moral relativism, but when they do they are being disobedient).

Science is concerned with empirical observation and measurement. It is by definition incapable of discovering or describing value, meaning, or morality.

BTW, the "dark ages" were anything but dark and the "enlightenment" would be better named the "endarkenment".

Luigi,

I do not believe I have been "aggressive" or used much derission at all, unless you think that anyone who disagrees with you (and for good reason) is automatically guilty of such. However, I have certainly been on the receiving end of such derission and aggression on numerous occasions especially from Kenny, Mollydukes, and Ringtail.

Oops!

I meant to say Christianity does NOT employ moral relativism. (thats not to deny that some Christians occasionally adopy moral relativism, but when they do they are being disobedient).

Thanks Aslan, but I think it's now evident from your own words that Christianity itself is riddled with 'moral relativism', if that's the best you can do to argue against it. You're wriggling: firstly you translated 'ratsah' as "intentional, violent murder", while other forms of premeditated and violent killing - such as in capital punishment and in warfare - were OK with your god. Now you tell us that it is the premeditated and intentional nature of abortion and euthanasia that would make them 'murder', or presumably 'ratsah'. I'm intrigued by a number of aspects of this argument:

(a) did the anthology of transcribed myths and legends handed down from the tribes of neolithic goat-herders say anything at all specifically about abortion?

(b) if so where do these texts assert that humanity begins at conception?

(c) where in your texts is the 'murderous' quality of 'ratsah' unambiguously conferred upon euthanasia, or mercy killing? Why isn't mercy killing "harag" when execution presumably is, except under the moral agendas of contemporary hard-right Christians?

You see, I think you godbotherers are intellectually dishonest when you attempt to rationalise your efforts to impose your religious standards on everybody else. Worse, you are intellectually dishonest with yourselves if you think you can rely on debatable translations of transcribed oral histories and legends to base your current political agendas on fine semantic differences in the ancient Hebrew in which these myths were originally written.

Face it - killing people by capital punishment and warfare is acceptable to you only because you support the political agendas of the states that legitimise such killing. There have been - and still are - many Christians who oppose those acts because they don't accept your biased translation of that fine semantic difference.

(End part 1)

(Part 2)

In the cases of abortion and euthanasia, it seems to me a case of the godbotherer tail trying to wag the legislative dog: these are currently areas of medical practice where some degree of ambiguity exists concerning whether or not the subjects are actually, legally and/or morally 'people'. What we see in the current frenetic political lobbying by godbotherer groups around these issues is an effort to impose 'fundamentalist' (however dodgy) values and interpretations upon all the rest of us, whether we share those values and beliefs or not.

Finally, and this is directed equally to Boaz: you guys haven't provided any absolute 'truths' to these forums, simply because you can't. Admonitions to love God and your neighbour aren't 'truths' - they are instructions. And any 'truths' contained in Aslan's convoluted reasoning are at best relative, rather than absolute.

That is why Christians employ 'moral relativism' as much as anybody else. No amount of semantic gymnastics can alter that.

The square peg of superstition just won't fit the round hole of reason, no matter how repetitively the godbotherers bang away at it, nor how big a hammer they use.

Morgan

While it might be true that science and technology have made significant advances in recent decades, much is still not known about the world we live in.

The more science discovers, the more it is discovered about how little is known, and perhaps this ratio has not changed much over the centuries.

Scientific investigation has limitations of available resources including time, finance, personnel etc, and there are many things that can never be fully investigated because of these limitations. The New Scientist magazine contains an article titled “13 things that do not make sense “ at http://www.newscientist.com/channel/space/mg18524911.600.

Maybe these things will never be fully understood, because in the case of such things as “Tetraneutrons” or the “Kuiper Ciff”, it becomes too expensive or too time consuming to find out much more.

So eventually science can only know so much, and then faith becomes necessary. It would also not be correct to rely totally on science to provide a reason for living either.

Timkins,not so.Science will continue to find out more.It is only the limitations of our human intelligence that restricts our understanding.Just because things don't make sense, doesn't tell us god does or does not exist.We just don't have all the data or maths and physics to wrap our brains around the cosmic realities that confront us.

True, the more we learn the more we find we don't know. And that is the beauty of science. We are only limited by our own intelligence. For those who find the concept of infinity too great to grasp, they fill in that void by saying 'and here must be god'. I am reminded of times past when the extent of the earth was unknown and on maps were the words 'and here be dragons'.

Ambo,
Science has many dragons, but in scientific terms they are normally called “theories”. The Big Bang is a theory only, and there is also “string” theory, “bubble” theory etc.

Someone can have a combination of belief in science, and a belief in a religion at the same time, and even religious fundamentalists will now use TV, Internet, SMS etc.

However I would not think it appropriate to lay all bets on science as an answer to every problem (because scientific investigation has a budget).

Timkins
Have you thought carefully about your last post? "Science has many dragons, but in scientific terms they are normally called “theories”" You actually believe that scientific theories are dragons? Do you believe that fairies live at the bottom of the garden as well? Thank you for demonstrating quite clearly that those of a religious nature are less evolved than those who seek rational explanations for the world around them. And thanks for making me laugh - your posts usually inspire only despair.

Aslan: On the contrary, the Macquarie definition is precisely the one which is accepted by evolutionists when they speak of evolution.
The trouble in discussion arises because creationists only concentrate on biological evolution. The reason for that narrowness is because to accept biological evolution would necessitate accepting that we humans are the end of a long line of simpler organisms and were not specially created by a god. That is the fundamental creationists. The deists and theists dodge the problem by retaining their god while recognising that the world works by an evolutionary process, i.e: everything comes into being, grows and develops then dies.

jrm & Boaz_David both have trouble accepting that all the thoughts in what we call our mind arise from the activity of the matter in our brain. I invited someone to explain how they think the thoughts arise if it is not from that brain activity. So far no response yet I hope it is something all people who believe that the supernatural affects their lives would try to explain, at least to themselves.

Timkins, so what if science is 'only' theory? It is a very satifying, exciting, inspiring theory that does provide the basis for morals and ethics - for thinking people that is.

Aslan, I have made fun of you and your refusal to acknowledge that 'evidence' your cite for your theories is irrational and flawed.

I do apologise if I have been abusive or rude. I find you personally amusing but your desire to impose your theories on others as the absolute truth is very scarey.

As I keep repeating (cos I think it is very important) look back to the excesses of well meaning Christians who 'only' sought to save unbelievers from themselves and you will see some of the worst human behaviour.

Anyway now that you are here, I'm moving on, because you (and Timkins) seem unable to debate or discuss issues. You have your obsessions and any minute now Timkins is going to begin to castigate women's lib - they must be in league with the dreadful evolutionists?

John, pls don't take 'no response' as indicative of not WANTing to make one, the RULES often thwart me, I send quite a few posts to various threads, and when I get red hot on this one, BINGO I get the 'fizzer' message "sorry...etc"...
Anyway,I seem to have misrepresented my position somewhat. I fully accept and even ADvocate that much of what we 'are' at any given moment is due to the brain chemistry etc. Example, we might fill our minds with porn, and surprise surprise, the next attractive female we see tends to make us think in a rather one track direction. Or, we might fill our minds with Scripture, and the next attractive female we see, tends to bring out more family,romantic and pure responses.

I fully believe that we have a moral/social centre of gravity, which can be pushed this way or that depending on what we feed our psyches.
For this reason, with the one exception of 'intersex' born people, I believe homosexual behavior and desires are deviate and not normal.

But when it comes to 'feeding' our inner self and our brain, there is one more aspect which tends to point to what we call our 'fallen nature' and that is the usual desire to take the line of least resistance and pander to our baser desires. Our WILL. We are informed enough to know what is right and wrong in our society, so what 'is' it which causes so many to 'tend' to go against it for personal gratification or advantage ? Perhaps this is why the commandments are couched in 'do not' language rather than 'do'.

John, about the supernatural. Our dilemna is that of the blind man, who Jesus is 'reported' to have healed. He was asked by the religious authorities "Who healed you" ? He said "As for who he is, I don't know, but once I was blind, and now I see" See John 9 for the details.
One degree of separation from the event, will not convince a determined skeptic. But hey, its now 2005 from....? :)

The thinking disbelievers are more true to the cosmic reality than any head banging slave to the Bible or Koran.We will accept the joys of life and the finality of death and still be responsible,ethical citizens.We will have an open mind to all the cosmic laws and realities that confront us and will accept our mortality.We will only pay homage to the religion of science and logic,that which gives us freedom of thought and more control of our destinies.
The way to a higher plane of consciousness is cold hard logic and the test of science.The true believers of logic and hardnosed reality gave us the time to indulge ourselves in thought at this moment in time,rather than the reality of survival in some cold cave where there is no time for thinking or family interaction.

Boaz
Look for the Dome of The rock and Mohammed.
But again the eyewitness account could be the same as the Christian account of the Resurrection claims of eyewitness accounts where there were none, especially when most of the NT was written decades after and most likely not by any of the apostles. Easy to put word in anyones mouth after the event.

Again even other Christians realize that that Creation Science is bunk and that the Bible cannot be used as an accurate historical document. At least they have some credibility.

I won’t get into a line by line debate with you over it the same as I won’t debate about Evolution.
There is even a bunch of fundies that want us to go back to the Earth centred solar system. Why not go with the flat earth as well?

No point discussing it with them or you on a factual basis as by backing something like Creation Science it shows a lack of understanding of the scientific method and the interdisciplinary nature of science or that you are incapable of changing your mind when presented with substantive evidence.

I’d rather see you dodge something like why your ‘God’ is a war criminal, mass murderer and why –my favorite- it condoned and encouraged slavery? Read your OT again.

Ambo, Arjay, Mollydukes
In the past, if someone was faced with an unknown they often developed theories that could include such things as dragons, witches, fairies, etc.

If a modern scientist is faced with an unknown, they will usually develop theories also, and while these theories may not contain dragons, witches etc, the majority of these theories will not be found to be accurate upon follow up testing or scientific research (ie there are many more scientific theories rejected than accepted)

Scientific research will always contain a statistical “degree of error”. This always occurs because of the varying inaccuracies that are intrinsically contained within any sampling, the research equipment being used, or the research procedures that are being carried out.

Accuracy or reliability of scientific research can be improved by providing more resources to a research project, but this often means cutting back on the resources that were being provided to another research project. So the accuracy or reliability of scientific research is often not limited by human intellect, but by the availability of resources such as time, money and personnel.

There can also be “advocacy research” whereby biased or corrupted researches will try and produce results that meet the expectations of the persons providing the money for that research.

So overall:- much in science is eventually rejected, science contains varying degrees of inaccuracy, and just any science or scientific investigation is not necessarily reliable science or reliable scientific investigation. But don’t just take my word for this, you can verify all of the above by contacting any experienced, unbiased scientific researcher.

Ambo,
I don’t belong to any church or religion, but you seem to infer that I do. What scientific principles were you using to come to your conclusions, and were these reliable scientific principles?

Molydukes,
Please find me feminist texts that contain something other than generalisations, non-substantiated evidence, hypocrisy, or biased and unethical research data and I will begin to believe what you have said regards myself (NB. Many have tried to find those texts, but nearly all have failed to date)

Timkins, in answer to your question why did I infer that you held a religious point of view, well.. your own words "So eventually science can only know so much, and then faith becomes necessary. It would also not be correct to rely totally on science to provide a reason for living either."
If you don't hold a religious perspective and you appear to be rejecting a scientific perspective, just what is the point you are trying to make?

Also no one in this forum is under any obligation to answer your questions when you set rules about how they are to be answered. eg "Ambo,
I don’t belong to any church or religion, but you seem to infer that I do. What scientific principles were you using to come to your conclusions, and were these reliable scientific principles?"

You really provoke people to respond to you in a mocking or sarcastic manner, your questions to not propel the debate and, as I have pointed out to you in other forums you seek to twist the subject matter to you own agenda. At some point you will begin blaming feminists for inaccuracy in scientific reasoning.

I know I am wasting my post and my time with you and this is the final time I will either respond to your post or answer your questions.

The simple facts are these, as warren has eloquently expressed far better than I, that there is solid, material evidence for evolution and no evidence for creation.

Ambo,

Ambo said,
“Thank you for demonstrating quite clearly that those of a religious nature are less evolved than those who seek rational explanations for the world around them.”

I would regard this as an inference that I am a religious person, and it is also an insult by suggesting that I am less evolved.

If you do not wish me to ask you questions of any type, then don’t make inferences regards myself that you latter can’t prove (ie. the very basis of bad science)

I have noticed that although many people have labelled me with many names (ie from misogynist to a GB), not once have these people ever provided substantiated evidence for their claims, and rarely do such people ever reference their general comments to anything else.

On the contrary, I have provided more references to statements I make via easily accessible links than anyone else I believe, and that is a very scientific principle to follow.

Creationist theory has significant flaws, and so do theories such as the Big Bang theory (if one investigates them fully). We will never possibly know for sure what created the universe.

In relation to feminism, I never mentioned it in this forum, Mollydukes brought up the subject first if you care to check back, and also made unsubstantiated comments regards myself (also poor science), and I was responding, but if feminism was a science, then it would have to be near the bottom of the list in terms of reliability, as there is almost no scientific basis for the claims so often made by feminist.

I see you're still going at it hammer and tongs here. I have to admit, you've converted me. Please allow me to farewell you all by urging you to look at this website, which provides no less than 78 arguments for the existence of a Christian god - most of them completely unanswerable.
http://groups.msn.com/AtheistVSGod/godexists.msnw

I see that poor old Timmy's understanding of the natural sciences is as deficient as his understanding of the social sciences. Scientific method involves the testing of falsifiable hypotheses against the probablity that test or expiremental results could have been obtained randomly. Results are normally reported formally in probablistic terms, such that, e.g. p = 0.05 (or that there is a 5% probability that the results were obtained randomly).

Scientific tests and experiments are normally replicated to increase their validity. If you know anything about probability at all, you would know that the probability of obtaining the same results in a repeated experiment is determined by multiplying the probabilities together: in the above example the probability of getting the same result twice in independent tests is .05 x .05 = .0025, or a 0.25% probability that the test results were randomly obtained, etc etc.

Obviously, this means that while science would never claim 'absolute' certainty that a result is valid (or 'true'), we can claim with measurable confidence the validity of our hypotheses.

There is no way that personal or folk beliefs (or 'theories', I suppose - in the broadest possible sense) concerning the existence of dragons, fairies, gods or 'resurrected' sons of gods can be falsified and measured according to scientific method. The null hypothesis to the proposition that dragons exist is that they do not exist, and this is an impossible hypothesis to test probabilistically. Or rather, it is too easy to reject at any of the conventional probability levels, while always remaining 'theoretically' possible.

Uneducated, unevolved, unintelligent or religious readers will undoubtedly not comprehend the above logic, but I'm sure that won't prevent them from posting something ignorant in response.

Morgan

Morgan, gee, ur sounding like mr Pot, u know, Pol. '
unevolved etc..... hmm have u joined the 'master race' recently bro ? :)

I can follow your logic and reasoning, and I'm sure Timmy can also.

I can't speak for him, but for me, attempting to prove God is a rather fruitless exercise. The gospel spread initially and still today in some 'frontier' areas, by the power of the word, not just the word. If this were not so, we would have 'evolved' out of action long ago mate.

LUIGI. I don't believe your converted, I checked the site and now I know u need 'more work' :) Ok.. lets get down to it.
Lu, we can't prove God, we believe, by faith, but the grounds of our faith are much stronger in terms of reasonableness than you and others give credit. I began where you are now, in my 20s, and ended up where I am now, clearly convinced. Many great and esteemed minds have gone down the same route, as u should know. That which makes the difference is the gospel, good news, Peter made a good speech in Acts 10, perhaps you are aware of it ?

Regarding 'the fairy tales' of the bible, and the problems of Oral Tradition. Surprisingly, many helpful insights on this general subject are gained by studying the Islamic hadiths. They are compiled from collections of oral tradition, thru what are called 'chains of narrators'. When the tradition ended up the same thru various different chains, it is regarded as reliable when subjected to other tests as well. Unquestionably, oral tradition is reliable, especially when conveyed in story form (Jesus and the parables) or song. In the case of the Gospels, the chain of narrators is maximum of 2, from Eye witness to recorder. Far less than the numerous and very indirect experience of the Muslims.

At a village in Malaysia I was told (once) about a persecution event over 20yrs ago. I'm going to record my memory on paper, return to the village, and see how it stacks up :)

David, you've lost the plot.Morgan is both level headed and logical.Sucking up to your perceived god will not change the reality.I know what religion is all about.I've seen the anguished and distraught clergy struggling with their sexuality and the meaning of life,only to be left in a meaningless void.Your god is your relationships with those whom you love and the struggle to become a better person in terms of improving yourself and understanding the the laws of the cosmos which determine our fate.
There are no absolute truths in the evolution of human beings.We need a changing environment to test our courage, resolve and to give life it's sparkle and adventure.The traditional religions are both predictable and boring.What sort of a god would create such a dynamic,powerful universe and at the same time produce such a boring non factual book as the Bible?It just dosen't make sense!!
universe and at the sam time pro

Yup - right on cue, Bozo.

If you were interested in verifiable facts, you'd know that Pol Pot's campaign was against the educated class, rather than ignorant peasants. For the record, I resent the comparison - Pol Pot was a murderous tyrant and I am nothing of the sort.

I'm just an ordinary rational guy who is very worried about the current political ascendancy of the bloody-minded Christian far right, both here and internationally.

I guess you'll apologise for yet another error in fact and continue your bluster, blissful in wilful ignorance.

Just as well you guys still make me laugh :)

Morgan

Morgan,

You don't seem to understand what "moral relativism" actually entails. Moral relativism means that there is no absolute standard by which you can judge right and wrong. Moral judgments are made by each individual according to their own standard or whim. Christianity has an absolute standard. Murder is always wrong. Killing in a justified war or in genuine self-defence is never wrong. There is no self-determination of morality in Christianity. Morality is totally derived from the Scriptures which we accept as the revealed word of God.

Also, we are only interested in imposing our religious standards on everybody else for the sake of society as a whole. ie. we will impose our standard that steeling, fraud, murder, rape and paedophilia etc. are wrong, and that a society that tolerates such things will self-destruct.

Also, we do not rely on "debatable translations of transcribed oral histories and legends to base your current political agendas on fine semantic differences in the ancient Hebrew in which these myths were originally written." There is no debate about the meaning of "ratsah".

And killing people by capital punishment and warfare is acceptable because Scripture allows it.

We can't provide absolute truths? See above. In fact, absolutes are a logical certainty due to the philosophical impossibility of no absolutes. ie. Saying there are no absolutes is in itself an absolute statement.

John Warren,

So by your (Macquarie) definition, a rusting nail is an example of evolution? Yeah, right. And what does this have to do with anything?

If we accept that our personality and the knowledge we accumulate in life is stored by interconnected neurons in our brain, and that these interconnections are volatile without a regular blood supply, then surely nothing of our personality or knowledge can remain or exist when we die.
Also I am still wondering how 'God' was able to move the tectonic plate beneath Banda Aceh in order to cause the recent Tsunami? (And why?)

Neohuman,

Regarding you comments about slavery and Christianity, a few points:

1. Every civilisation (yes, EVERY civilisation) practiced slavery.
2. The Bible never actually condones or sanctions slavery. The writers merely accept it as the reality that it was at that time, but does give instructions to be both slaves and slave owners regarding how they should treat each other (ie. with respect).
3. "Biblical" slavery (ie. slavery in this period of time) was nothing at all like the cruel and inhumane African slave trade.
4. Who started the cruel and inhumane African slave trade? Answer: Black chieftains.
5. Who brought the African slave trade to Europe and America? Answer: Arab Muslims.
6. Who stopped the African slave trade to England and America? Answer: Evangelical Christians.

You say God is a mass murderer and war criminal. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Morgan,

Re your comments on science and repeatability, do yo understand that this is precisely why evolution is a fairy tale? It is not repeatable.

Also, don't pretend to be a totally objective scientist. You reject belief in God. Ok. But you do so by faith alone.

Christians believe in God by faith.
Atheists reject belief in God by faith.
Thus, atheists are just as religious as Christians.

The difference is that Christians think it is entirely rational that the nature of existence points to a personal first cause. Atheists, on the other hand take the completely irrational view that nothing suddenly fluctuated and rapidly expanded into everything!

It never ceases to amaze me how some educated and intelligent people who are atheists/deists can believe such complete irrational, illogical nonsense.

Arjay,

You said: "There are no absolute truths in the evolution of human beings."

However, saying there are no absolute truths is itself an absolute truth claim.

Like all moral relativists you end up speaking total nonsense.

Aslan
All your points on slavery are irrelevant and you are wrong there are numerous passages where ‘God’ says to take slaves.

If your god can communicate directly with Moses and tell his people -through him- to forget millennia of tradition, say there is only one god and that here are the laws you should abide by; if you were serious you would acknowledge that he could have outlawed slavery no matter how kindly they were treated or how many practiced it, for however long.

Here is your Christian moral relativism and cognitive dissonance and one of your biggest blind spots.

Slavery in an absolute moral system would be wrong regardless of circumstance.

BTW when the Roman Empire became Christian slavery wasn’t outlawed. Reason, in the Bible it is a routine practice.

>You say God is a mass murderer and war criminal. How did you arrive at this conclusion?

Come on Aslan read the Bible without rose coloured glasses.

-Go kill that tribe everything even the animals and take the virgins as sex slaves.
-The flood
-The Egyptian first born.
-Sodom and Gomorrah
I’m sure I could go on and on, if any of us did what your god did by mundane means we would be tried as war criminals.

If you want I’ll get the exact passages but you should know all the stories.

Morgonzola,
“I see that poor old Timmy's”

Please supply your scientific evidence to show that I am “poor” and “old”

I am quite aware of statistics and how they can be used and misused http://www.fact.on.ca/Info/info_vac.htm , and I am quite aware of the range of ethics of various scientists, some of which have been highly questionable ethics from Dr Joseph Mengele http://www.123student.com/4830.htm to Dr Susan Maushart http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5744,4040621%255E17282,00.html

I am also aware that science does produce a lot of theories, most of which are never proven to be accurate and are latter rejected.

For example :- for the creation of the universe, there has been the “Big Bang Theory” http://www.big-bang-theory.com/, the “Inflation Theory”, http://universe-review.ca/R02-13-inflation.htm the “String Theory”, (or “Super String Theory”, or “M-Theory”) http://www.sukidog.com/jpierre/strings/
, the Black Hole Origin Theory http://www.qsmithwmu.com/the_black_hole_origin_theory_of_the_universe_frontiers_of_speculative,_current_physical_cosmology.htm and more recently the “Multiple Universe Theory”. http://www.closertotruth.com/topics/universemeaning/213/213transcript.html

Which is the best theory?

Which is the best religion?

I presently do not belong to any organised religion, but it is probable that some religions can operate in parallel with science, and can be of constructive use to people. If someone has a use for a religion, then they can practice that religion, as long as it does not negatively affect someone else.

Your unsubstantiated name calling of others such as labelling someone “poor”, “old”, “uneducated”, “unevolved”, “unintelligent”, “ignorant” etc can of course negatively affect others, and I am only left to wonder where you were educated, and by whom.

However my experience with feminism leaves me completely unsurprised that you have previously described yourself as being a supporter of feminism, as I have seen your characteristics displayed many times over by many other feminists

Neohuman,

You say that God says to take slaves. Not true. He allows foreign slaves to be bought and allows people to sell themselves into slavery to fulfil a debt but He never commands people to take slaves as far as I am aware.

Again, “Biblical slavery” is nothing like the dehumanising slavery of the Roman world or of the African slave trade. God commanded that slaves were to be treated with respect and dignity and all slaves were to be set free in the year of Jubilee.

Nevertheless, your objections to slavery in the Bible have absolutely nothing at all to do with moral relativism.

Again, moral relativism is the lack of an absolute standard. Your objection to Biblical slavery is an objection to that absolute standard. Ok – fine. Noone is forcing you to accept the Bible’s absolute moral standard.

However, because you don’t happen to like Christianity’s morality doesn’t mean that Christianity adopts moral relativism.

You say: “Slavery in an absolute moral system would be wrong regardless of circumstance.”

On what basis can you say that slavery would always be wrong in an absolute moral system?

Saying something is “always wrong” implies that you are making an absolute statement, so what is your absolute standard which allows you to make such a statement? You are making a moral judgment (slavery is always wrong) but you can only make such moral judgments according to an absolute standard. What is your standard?

It can’t be Christianity because Christianity allowed slavery in those particular circumstances. If you don’t have an absolute standard outside of Christianity then you are speaking nonsense.

The flood, Egyptian firstborne, Sodom and Gomorrah and the instructions to exterminate other groups were all instances of divine judgment. In most cases, God warned the people and gave them time to repent. God threatened to wipe out the people of Ninevah but they repented so God spared them.

Again, you are free to agree or disagree with Christian morality, but Christianity most certainly does not employ moral relativism.

Neo ... on slavery. I take your points on board, about God allowing certain slavery related practices. You did not take Aslans points about what 'slavery' actually 'was' in those days. Because it was not just ONE thing. That IS a valid point, and we are just as much 'slaves' to 'Which Bank' etc.. when u work out how long most of your working life goes to pay nothing but the interest on your mortgage, u are their slave to that extent.

Slavery as Social Welfare.
Neo, the simple fact is that you have not to my knowledge lived in a world where u were surrounded by it, and faced the real possibility of yourSELF becoming a captive slave to an invading people.
I don't expect you to be able to identify with it, and the plight of a man divested of all the social supports that previously existed prior to invasion. It may well have been that YOU were the invader who happen to have lost the battle, in which case if u had the choice of starvation, death, or slavery under 'fair and reasonable' regime, I think I know which one u would choose.

I've used the same arguments as you, about 'absolute truth' applicable for all time against Muslims when it comes to allowing the rape of captive girls. i.e. "True then, must be true now" kind of thing. The difference is, that Sura 8.5-6 are similar to the 10 commandments in import, they are specifically laid down as 'how the believers should be forever'
I think you need to distinguish between the 'abiding commandments' and the social necessities of a particular historical time. If u compare the attitude of Aristotle and Socrates toward the 'slave' class, the OT comes out squaky clean. The 10 commandments have nothing about allowing slavery, a reading will show that they are supportive of very fair dealings with all humanity.
Remember please, that Israel was in the midst of a 'kill or be killed, rule or be ruled, enslave or be enslaved' historical situation, and into that situation God spoke.

Aslan - the reason you can't see that your religion is riddled with internal 'moral relativism' is simply because you refuse to, similarly with your ludicrous assertion that evolution can't be explained scientifically because it can't be replicated. Of course we can't replicate processes that take millions of years, any more than we can replicate a cyclone or create a volcano - but surely you're not saying that these natural phenomena cannot be explained by scientific method? We can certainly 'prove' within acceptable confidence levels that natural selection occurs, and that our various dating methods are reliable, etc etc.

In the end, all you can do is assert your faith - which would be fine if you didn't simultaneously insist that laws and other social rules that apply to everybody should be derived from your arbitrary interpretations of the myths and legends of a group of goat-herders.

As for poor sad old bitter and twisted Timmy: you may not adhere to any particular religion, but your mind is as straitjacketed as if you did. Thanks for sharing your ignorant views on statistics, ethics and feminism - but the rest of us were discussing science, evolution and religion. It's not all about you, Timmy.

Morgan

Morgan,

The reason I don't see that Christianity is riddled with moral relativism is because it isn't and you have not shown that it is by showing that it has no absolute standard.

I never said that "evolution can't be explained scientifically because it can't be replicated". I said that evolution (molecules-to-man) is not strictly scientific because it cannot be replicated nor can it be observed. No, we can't replicate volcanic eruptions or cyclones but these things happen often enough for us to observe and measure. This is not the case with molecules-to-man evolution.

I don't doubt that natural selection occurs. Indeed, that theory was first proposed by a Christian and creationist. However, dating methods are not reliable and are regularly inconsistent with known facts, other dating methods/results and geological context.

You say: "In the end, all you can do is assert your faith - which would be fine if you didn't simultaneously insist that laws and other social rules that apply to everybody should be derived from your arbitrary interpretations of the myths and legends of a group of goat-herders."

Are you any different? All you do is assert your irrational, philosophically inconsistent, materialistic faith. That would be fine if you were consistent with your moral relativism and refused to say anything about anyone else, but you and many other materialistic moral relativists are pushing your own self-styled morality on everyone else.

Make no mistake, western civilisation has become what it is today, with its notions of justice, rule of law, democracy, social welfare and science, because of Christianity morality. Can your self-styled morality claim the same?

Morgan.. adding 'bitter' and 'twisted' to the existing "poor and old" for Timmy.. now be nice, as Pericles told me 'not a good look'

Annnyway, I'm thinking of changing my nick to 'goat herder' :)
but in reality its more like chicken herder (I have 5) or dog chaser (the neighbours 2 labradors come and bug me on a daily basis.

Morg. u won't really get to the point of showing us the 'error of our ways'. Like I've said many times, just like the blind man, when confronted by the 'Politically correct religious leaders' had only one thing to say "One think I know,I was blind, but now I see" :)

blessings all.

Aslan, Boaz interesting topic a bit off the orginal should we take it to another place?
I've got an non-theist forum or should we look for neutral ground?

Neo I think this thread is pretty exausted anyway :)

I don't think I can stretch my involvment any further to another forum just now.

Keep up the interesting comments, no drama that we often disagree, eventually we will all rejoice in you finding 'the truth' :) (don't u just hate that)...
Did u ever see the Frazier episode where he volunteers to drive a new woman in his life to Canada, a 6 hour journey, (otherwise he won't see her again because she is about to take a cab to the airport) only to find when he gets in the car and they settle in for the trip she says "So, Frazier, have u found the TRUTH yet"? u can imagine that his previous unsanctified thoughts about possibilities on the journey, rapidly turned into a rather tired and forlorn look.

Cheers

Been on holidays to NZ lovely place. Quick catch up on this thread sees I have not missed to much. Still lots of talking and little understanding. I find it interesting reading what people without scientific training interoperate science. Articles like the one I think Timmy mention in new scientist are a excellent example that science moves forward by it’s openness of the things it doesn’t fully understand. [Sentence deleted for flaming and the author has been suspended for a week].

I said we will never know exactly how life actually started simply because we can not go back it time. That does not stop us from showing it was a natural process. Just as we can demonstrate your mother and father produce you, we don’t have to produce a photo of the moment of conception to prove it.

Christianity has a much validity as astrology, you guys have had over two thousand years to came up with some irrefutable proof of your claims and have failed to do so. Science is our future and religion is part of our history. Step into the light.

Kenny, be careful or I might punish u by sending you to sit at the feet of Pericles and learn big words like "Penumbral" and "Exuquite" *smile*

Man, I can hardly remember then let alone spell them. Kenny, when your grammer catches up with your lofty claims about 'scientific training' I might be more prone to listen :) ur grammer is LOUSY. No offence, its just a fact brudder...

U gave us your position clearly, by admitting u can't find the evidence for your view but 'that doesn't stop us from finding a natural cause for it'. Duh ... in other words, no MATTER what facts I'm presented with, my mind is made up. You tend to dispute the factual nature of what we present, and I'd like to see your reasoned debunking of the resurrection of Jesus based on the available evidence and not just wild assumptions or arguments from silence.

I'd say Aslan puts 10 times the effort into his posts as you do, u just seem to repeat the same old "your an idiot" slogans.

I bring new hope and joy to our religious brethren - the ones who are still here after the Rapture, that is. Here's a teaser from an interesting article in the age: "The stories go as follows: the Second Coming of Jesus has happened. Millions of born-again Christians have been suddenly taken into the sky to be with their Lord - this is called the Rapture - and unbelievers are left behind to make what they will of the aftermath."

and here's the link: http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Trail-of-fear-left-behind-by-moral-crusaders/2005/04/02/1112302283732.html

Seems christians are right and everybody else is wrong. Nyah, nyah nyah!

Bless you all

Thanks for that, Ringtail. Do you know if the late Pope was among the transportees?

More seriously, this LaHaye clown shares a worrisome characteristic with some of the more prolific godbotherers in these forums: the inability to distinguish fiction from non-fiction - even when they write it themselves!

These forums are an endless source of amusement for me - albeit rather black humour. Posts from Ringtail are like windows of light in a dark and gloomy room.

Morgan

aarrgghh... Tim Lawho ? don't worry, I do know of him, but kinda wish I didn't.. I also see a worrisome trend of ME and the others of my ilk here being associated directly with LaHaye's views. There are a number of views on the last days and the 2nd coming and the rapture, the chronology is the main issue, and I'd put Mr LaHayes efforts somewhere along with the Davinci code and Chariots of the Gods, and Hal Lindsays "Late Great Planet Earth".

The best medicine to treat your bludgeoned senses with is of course a good read of the bible -nyah nyah :)
Stop whining u 2, and don't let best seller authors cause u to waste time writing about them here... if they have a good case, ok, if a lousy and contentious one, also ok its no biggy. Even the influence of Lahaye in the White house, is not related to his last days views as much as a general re-Christianization of pagan/liberal american educational life.

People who disagree with his input, should make their own, work and strive and struggle to impose 'their' views on us :) which we have been enduring for a LONGGGG time now.

We can never avoid the politics of state and religion and non-religion, but my biggest worry and fear, is that in all of this, the simple beauty and peace which truly passes understanding, of knowing Christ will not be seen.

Instead of railing against the godbotherers, seek for urselves, and u will find :) its always a choice matter, Jesus knocks, and for those who open the door, He will come in, if the door remains closed, he moves on. Sadly, perhaps one day the last person who shared the gospel with you might also.

Today is Sunday, "where 2 or 3 are gathered in my name there I am in the midst of them" said Jesus, and how true that is :) in spite of the raucous goings on in this rather competitive forum.
Blessings back at ya Ringy and Morg.

Morgan - thank you.
Boaz - good response, now we're communicating. I will never see religion the way you do. I have been questioning religious issues since I was 12. I now know who I am and where I want to be and am v/happy with that.

Maybe it is the way our brains are wired?

Ringtail..... (and Morgan)
you should hear yourself .. "I'll NEVER see religion the way you do"
hmmmmm....If we were in the grand canyon I'd be hearing echo after repeating echo of 'closed mind' :) Lets go back a step, from seeing 'religion' in the same way, to seeing ANYthing.... like the Pope just passed way..right ? this is not disputed I hope. I mean, it happened, it was real... he died. I can't imagine in 200 yrs time people disputing this. We know of his passing through reports, many of them. Thus far none have claimed he 'rose' from death. But if they DID, don't you think it would be just so easy to send some heavies, grab his body and SHOW it to the world, get some independant medical people from 'your' camp and verify it all. I surely cannot imagine anyone (who has at least an quarter of a brain) after seeing he is still really dead, go out and endure untold suffering based on a claim that he DID rise :). The Jews could have ensured the same thing, as could the Romans, "LOOK... u morons.. HERE HE IS.. 'THIS' is his corpse .. do u GET it yet he is Dee Ee Aye Dee- Dead?" Thats all they had to do, after all, Jesus was where after his crucifixion ? In a tomb guarded by Roman Soldiers who would pay with their LIVES if they let anyone disturb it. they HAD to guard it because the authorities were aware.... of his claim "after 3 days he will rise"

Now.. dont take that little diatribe as 'insisting' :) I'm just 'pointing'.

I've only said all this because of 'I'll Never'...I'd prefer to hear, "I'm yet to be convinced".... which at least shows an open mind.

Buttt.. back to the material world and tidying up various technical loose ends which have caused my economic life to pass before my eyes for the past 2 weeks :) Now, (having solved a problem) I can actually predict when I'll be able to buy my next jar of Peanut Butter.

Boaz - you were doing so well and then.... the bludgeon.

I am yet to be convinced I will believe I'm a man. - Howzat?

Some things ain't gonna happen.

Will you ever be an atheist?

LOL