"The failure to recognise the search for meaning is a criticism that must be levelled primarily at the philosophers among them, Onfray and Dennett. They are from the discipline that has, for 2,000 years, been asking this question of our meaning, our identity."

Amongst the confusions in your article, Dr. Bowden, this one stands out. The meaning of your life is not something to be searched for, but somethng to be decided upon, to be chosen. It is a matter of the values that you commit yourself to, that you seek to run your life by.

You may well cast around, and seek guidance, before committing yourself. You may well change your mind as you attempt to live by them. You would hope anyway to deepen your understanding of what you choose--which is a form of changing your mind.

Even if (contrary to what I think we can prove) we are created by a god
and not by our parents), that does not relieve us from the choice. God may have His values, but we still would have to decide whether they were good ones. (On the evidence of the Bible and the Boxing Day tsunami, they are decidely mixed.)

I had to smile......

Atticus the lawyer said:

<<the belief that it is acceptable (even virtuous) to believe things on no or bad evidence.>>

Att...did you buy your lawyers licence in 'Bi Lo'? :)

The 'evidence' for Christ, and the Biblical documents, is one of the best established facts on earth.... Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law school co founder subjected the Gospels to the 'rules of evidence' and did not find them wanting. (yes..he was a Christian, but also a highly respected lawyer who would have been ridiculed by his peers had he 'fixed' the outcome)

The philosopher Alistair McIntyre demonstrated how to disprove the existence of a theistic God in the 1960's. There are certain requirements for a god to be worthy of worship. In McIntyre's view, he had to be omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. A being lesser in any of these respects would not be appropriate for worship at all.

But there are empirical reasons to deny the existence of such a god--in the existence of great evils, not produced by humans.

In my view, the argument does not require the perfections McIntyre supposes. For it to make sense to adore, to thank or to praise God, he has to be agential--He has to be able to act, and to actually do things. And those actions must be consistently good. He must at lest be aware of the state of the world in the spheres where He can act. And He must act whenever it is morally required that He do so. It is plain, as a matter of experience, that He does not.

You can't by such an argument show that there is no powerful, morally flawed being in charge of the universe. You can show that such a being is not a god.

Yes, there are replies to the problem of evil. Most of them involve attributing despicable values to God--like the claim that the tsunami was sent as a warning or as a punishment; or that we could have avoided the lose of life if we had developed an early warning system. The remaining ones (or those that I am aware of) are not adequate to excuse the evils that exist.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

For context see:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392

This is the creator of the universe speaking?

The creator of the universe instructs his followers when and under what circumstances they are to slaughter "idolaters?"

Note the 9:5 is prescriptive. It does not say when it is PERMITTED to slaughter the "idolaters." It is an EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION to slaughter the "idolaters" under certain circumstances.

Note that the authenticity of the koran is a central tenet of Islam. The creator of the universe supposedly instructed an angel to dictate the koran verbatim to a seventh century Arabian warlord.

Who decides who qualifies as an idolater worthy of slaughter? Why the followers of Allah, the creator depicted in the koran?

Is there an entity that could be described as the creator of the universe?

I don’t know. Consider me a sceptical agnostic.

But, if there is a creator, does he / she / it / they bear any resemblance to the petty, vengeful, megalomaniacal little tyrant depicted in the koran?

Give me a break.

Unsurprisingly the character of Allah is the character of a 7th Century warlord which is what you would expect given the authors of the koran.

And this really is where appeals from people like Peter Bowden fall down. Yes religion has given meaning to the lives of many. Yes many people have been inspired to do great deeds of charity as a result of their religious beliefs. Yes atheists are not noted for their charitable deeds.

But then we are faced with explicit instructions to slaughter supposedly emanating from the creator of the universe?

Gullible does not begin to describe what it takes to believe the creator of the universe would dictate 9:5.

Boaz, I'm amazed you insist on perpetuating this myth.

>>The 'evidence' for Christ, and the Biblical documents, is one of the best established facts on earth.... Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law school co founder subjected the Gospels to the 'rules of evidence' and did not find them wanting<<

As I've told you before, Simon was not a co-founder of Harvard Law School.

Also, he was not just any old Christian, but according to Dr. Bill Long:

"Greenleaf was a lifelong Episcopalian, an Evangelical Episcopalian in the 19th century meaning of that term, who always was very involved in the life of his church and his diocese... active in the Massachusetts Bible Society... wrote tracts for the American Tract Society... active in promoting theological education... drew up constitutions and bylaws for these schools... a leading force in the American Colonization Society, which was committed to repatriating American Blacks to Liberia as a way to "solve" the slavery problem. That is, Greenleaf was a powerful spokesman his entire adult life for themes, movements and concerns that motivated the 19th Century Evangelicals."

This would be crystal clear, if you ever read any of his "evidence".

He starts halfway down the back straight:

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications... has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner, by others."

He further tilts the playing field:

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

So his starting point is that a) God caused the gospels to be written, and that b) they are, by definition, genuine.

With that as the starting point, it is hardly surprising that he was able to prove they were a) divinely inspired and b) genuine.

By the way, have you actually read Greenleaf? I have, and I strongly suggest that you do before you refer to him again.

Fat chance, eh?

Surely any concept of god would admit that he/she/it is inestimable, unknowable. At best, only aspects of who or what could be “seen’.

Atheism is not a new phenomenom. Atheists, Jews and Christians have all contributed to modern science - even to the theory of evolotuion. Christians and Jews have found no conflict between their beliefs and evidence. (I do not include fundamentalists).

A physicist, and a “card carrying” atheist, told me he saw god in a physics equation. He explained. The beauty and elegance of this equation was “inexpressible” ... This man certainly did not undergo any epithany of religious conversion; this is the only way he could convey his meaning.

I know little about Muslims and their beliefs as regard particular sciences or evolution. However, I know a cultured Muslim whose kindness and actions have nothing to do with any expected reward of 72 virgins in the afterlife.

Neither atheists nor religions have a monopoly on kindness, nor generosity (whether of spirit or materially), nor of concern for others. I doubt if many of religious belief actually contemplate that they are racking up browny points for heaven: they may feel they have to atone for some injustice they have committed. This is not the same.

Undoubtedly, religion has caused misery; but it has also produced the most sublime of arts and of abstract, and of metaphysical thought. One cannot study the past without also including study of its religion. Scientists who study the primitive emergence of art believe it had religious meaning. It would be very difficult to separate the history and culture of mankind from religion.

cont ...