Love your work there Mr Matheson - you provide a shining example of the tolerant understanding side of Christianity, showing it doesn't have to be the aggressive 'fire and brimstone' variety.

I hope that public schools are telling the 'creation bus' to create elsewhere.

At least, as with most things be they political or otherwise, there tends to be a pendulum style reaction. It can already be seen in the declining numbers of churchgoers.
Humanity is a distinctly shortsighted creature, and those who are spruiking the religious card now for political ends will find themselves with egg on their faces when the pendulum swings the other way and a secular period reigns.
I dare say such a secular period will also go to extremes in its rejection of religion before swinging back to a religious point again.

The trick is to enjoy the moments where the pendulum is at the centre, before the extremities kick in.

I agree that fundamentalist Christianity is a disaster both for the church and the society that it seduces. I also agree that ID is a bankrupt ideology and nothing to do with science. However, I am in favour of the idea of church schools and universities, it is just that we do not have the church schools that I can be in favour of. The mainline Protestant schools are part of the church in name only offering only a token Christian presence that is often ill equipped to counteract massive cultural opposition. The large schools are too intent on protecting the interests of their well heeled constituency to allow the gospel to escape into the class room. The low fee schools do not have the leadership or the resources to produce a creditable argument for the Church. Even the Catholic schools fail to turn out students with a deep attachment to Church. One hopes that the Catholic universities will do better.

That does not say that we should give up on Christian education, it is just that it seems that we have forgotten how to do it.

There is something promising for the church in Australia’s secularism. In America religion is in the air all the time and no politician would claim to be an atheist. In Australia the air is relatively clear except for some remarkable anti religious bigotry. This creates a space for true evangelism such as the church encountered in Greek culture in its early stages

Although the observations have merit there is no acknowledgement that we all fall for the three card trick - kids ask the darnest questions. The inherent fault with ID and Creationism is that no such questions are allowed. Now where do you think all these non answered questions will find their way - the web. So unless the conservative coalition can find a way to silence the web then the genie is out of the bottle and no one can put it back in.

Trouble is, TRTL, the pendulum is always moving at its fastest across the centre point, and lingers at the extremes. Unfortunate, isn't it?

As a Christian, I am only slightly more comfortable with extreme Christianity than with extreme anti-Christianity. What I mean by extreme Christianity is what we're talking about here: the [potential] capture of the political machine by the scariest (apocalyptic and oppressive) Christians around.

As you suggest, they don't resemble true Christianity at all (if I'm reading you correctly). I would trust Jesus at the US President's elbow, but I wouldn't entrust many Christians with that kind of influence, myself included.

Neither, of course, would I entrust that influence to anyone else - not a Muslim, not an atheist, not a capitalist, not a socialist .... No-one is neutral, no-one is safe - hence the need for the democratic process to operate at its best. That's what troubles me about the US - it is just barely democratic.

Pax,

An excellent article.
People who send their children to religious schools, particularly the more fundamentalist variety, do not realise the damage the teachers in such schools can do to their children's ability to think clearly. It is fundamentally evil to undermine a child's confidence or inhibit his or her ability seek evidence to support a proposition. I have seen an application for employment as a teacher in a Christian School. The first questions are about beliefs, not about teaching ability! We need to avoid following the USA and instead minimise the evils of fundamentalist religion influence in education, economics and politics.
I have trouble understanding how a person who believes that it is okay to indoctrinate a child can live with him or her self. The Jesuit idea of, "Give me the child until the age of seven and I will give you the man" came from the Dark Ages and belongs in the dustbin. I suggest that any one who reads this article should go to the site below. There, Stephen Law, an author and philosophy lecturer at the University of London, points out how our children could and should be educated to improve their intellectual abilities and their character and future behaviour and well being. All thinking and fair minded citizens should get behind the call for the introduction of a Philosopy for Children approach to education from early primary schooling on. Adoption of such a programme hold out the probability that criminality, drug addiction, and susceptibility to scams would become lesser problems for the coming generation.
http://lawpapers.blogspot.com/2008/02/extract-from-chpt-3-war-for-childrens.html

Sorry_Rivergum... but

<<The inherent fault with ID_and_Creationism is that no such questions are allowed. >>

is total rubbish!

The shoe is on the other foot. Try.. JUST try.. to question 'evolution' and see how you are howled down, mocked, ridiculed and ostracized.

The id agenda is to teach id as ONE of a number of possible interpretations of the evidence.

"ID" also relates to 'origins' about which science has NO definitive answers, thus it is NOT in conflict with 'evolution' apart from denying what the theory of evolution cannot itself determine apart from pure speculation.

SELLS. "Fundamentalist Christianity" is a very loaded statement, and it is really rather shabby to declare it as a 'seductive disaster for the church and society'

Far more accurate would be to say "SOME branches of hyper fundamentalist Christianity SUCH AS.. Fred Phelps and company, are blah blah"

As your statement reads currently, you have vilified ALL Christians who hold to the Nicene Creed. err..doesn't that include 'you' ?

Criticize... berate... rip apart..by all means.. but do it SPECIFICALLY and don't throw 'me' out with the 'fundy' bathwater, because in all likelihood..I might feel a tad uncomfortable.

What irritates me to the nth degree..is where some ratbag extremists (CJ..I mean the 'REAL' ones who blow up abortion clinics and dance on dead gays graves) are used to justify such blanket statements as 'fundamentalist Christians'

If you want to justify that statement....take a page from my own book and PROVE IT from the foundation documents PROPERLY interpreted on which that faith is based.

For a refreshing change, why not talk about 'Christianity' as a faith..I have no quarrel with that.

"Properly" means the natural grammatical context, the historical context and background, and the subsequent qualification of particular texts in the foundation documents which gives the broader meaning of the idea, and in the immediate (and most innocent) period of the growth of a movement. In Christianity's case, it would be the early church, take the first 300 yrs to be fairly safe.

Do the same for any faith and I'm happy that it is 'properly' interpreted.

Good points there goodthief - I'd say I'm marginally more comfortable with extreme anti-christianity as there's less basis for decisions based on theology rather than rationality, but I'm not really comfortable with either.

Frankly, I don't like extremist views of any hue, be it socialism, anarcho-capitalism, Christianity or Islam.

Espoused from a moderate view however, I've no problem with any of them (though in the case of anarcho-capitalism, the moderate view is more or less plain old capitalism - the status quo).

I guess the real problem we face is the fact that extreme ideologies are inevitably more powerful than moderate ones.

Lets face it - somebody who espouses a view that urges tolerance and understanding of their opponent's view as well, is never going to have the same 'sledgehammer' effect as one that can discard the worth of their ideological opponent.

It's far harder to galvanise a movement if you respect the views of the people you're mobilising against.

Hence the ongoing pendulum effect.

It's just a shame that for all the people with hefty dose of common sense, be they Christian, Islam, Socialist or Buddhist (anything really) they unfortunately, don't wield the same influence as the extremists.

All they have in their favour, is that they're able to work co-operatively with people from other ideologies. I suppose that's one benefit of multiculturalism that's often ignored in favour of the extremist views - which again, are seductive in their brute force.

It's interesting to muse what has made Australia a stable country.
To be fair to the 'monoculture' brigade that inhabits these boards, a strong western influence is of course a large factor, but a healthy injection of other cultures has meant that there isn't one single ideology that can run roughshod over others.

The other ingredient, I think, is apathy. The apathetic nature of Australians in regard to politics is quite a contrast to the raging views held throughout unstable countries in Europe, where socialism vs capitalism debates always rage. Ironically, I think the apathy that is so frustrating at times is actually a blessing in disguise.

Boaz - I don't care who you are and after that last post I'm not all that interested.

Fundamentalist preachers and presidents.....cock and coca cola, yankee doodle just the same.

When are the secular humanist such as the author going to realise that people have tried the humanistic approach to education only to prove a massive failure. Even many of the Labour party send their kids to schools that don't lie about so called global warming, teach the lie of evolution and promote next to no values or dubious value at best. Most parents are more interested in reality than philosophy. What parent in their right mind would send their kids to a school that encourages immorality, allows a drug culture and does little more than manage badly behaved kids?

What beats me is how men with views like Alan were ever ordained in a church. It sounds like he would of been preaching more of Dawkin's dogmas than Christ's teaching.

Mr Rudd did not mind pulling out the religious card when it suited him Why is not Alan writing about him? Oh that is right he is also a friend the the ACTU

What is worrying me is that this 'creationism' is really taking over in many parts of Australia, eg my local paper 'Blue Mountains Gazette' has been inundated recently with letters to the editor claiming that science is just false and misleading and that evolution is a deliberate attempt by 'anti-christians' to confuse and corrupt. I have always believed in religious freedom and my concern now is that I can be targeted as evil. I have friends who have spoken in support of other religions and have then had their property vandalised, and their lives threatened - eg 'Family First' has threatened terror actions against those who are considered to be against them. Remember the witch trials? Hold the suspected person underwater, if they drown they were innocent, if not they were put to death as being evil. Whichever way they lose. AS DO WE?

BOAZ_David: "JUST try.. to question 'evolution' and see how you are howled down, mocked, ridiculed and ostracized."

It depends on which part of evolution you're questioning. If you're questioning the theoretically and experimentally proven mechanisms of evolution with nothing more than your opinion or a fairy tale then yes you will be howled down, mocked, ridiculed and ostracized. If you're questioning the historical story told by the fossil evidence then you'll probably find quite active debate within the scientific community about how to interpret the evidence. Of course if you're going to offer an alternative story, then it needs to be rationally based on scientific principles otherwise its no better than claiming babies are delivered by stalks.

"The id agenda is to teach id as ONE of a number of possible interpretations of the evidence."

Given that ID is not a scientific theory it does not belong in the science class.

As for "Fundamentalist Christians", I'd regard anyone who places the tenants of their faith over and above observations of the world around them as "Fundamentalist". When fundamentalists impact public policy they might improve things in the context of their faith, but their ignorance of reality can cause great harm to people in the real world. If you're advocating the teaching of ID within the school science class then you are one of the dangerous fundamentalists the article is talking about.

Great stuff.

A concise summary of the role of puritannical sex-paranoid righteous religiosity in USA politics, and its inherently totalitarian agenda(s).

Should be compulsory reading for every one.

Meanwhile these "religious" outfits have very close links with most of the highly influential right-wing USA think tanks with their "gospel" of "free" market capitalism, with its totalizing agenda(s) too---all in the name of "freedom" of course.
Especially the AEI and the Heritage (of lies) Foundation (HF).

The Republican party at prayer. That should that be preying, as in predator.

The same AEI etc that published last Fridays rant by Adam Creighton.

The same AEI and HF that has very close links with our CIS and IPA---which are in a very real sense clones of the AEI and HF.

An excellent article - one written by someone who clearly sees the American right religious nutters for what they are, and the dangers that they represent.
Full marks to Foyle - the forces of superstition and ignorance are completely confounded by critical thinking, especially if taught as a skill from an early age. We owe our children the tools to counteract the pernicious rubbish espoused by the evangelical and apocalyptic doomsayers in their clearly pursued (largely government sponsored)agenda of taking over the education system in this country. Let it not be forgotten that Brendan Nelson has spoken in favour of 'Intelligent Design' being taught in our schools.

Rosella Blue
''Family First' has threatened terror actions against those who are considered to be against them'

Your ignorance or dishonesty is highlighted in comments like this. It is the earth worshipper's (mostly green voters I suspect) that are by far the most violent in this country (just ask the Police). It is the secular humanist that murder and support the murder of unborn babies in the thousands largely for convenience.

You fears seem displaced. You can sleep well. It won't be the Salvation army or the happy clappers that you need to fear. You can continue to believe in unintelligent design but just be prepared to continue to change your story as evolutionist have done now for decades as fraud after fraud is uncovered.

Although this particular article only ends with the ID debate and is not it's focus, I must take issue with runner's claims that science keeps changing decade after decade after frauds are uncovered.

The detailed mechanisms of Evolution are always open to scientific debate as they always should be. The debate over evolution within the scientific community is not whether evolution exists or not, that debate is over, as it is over with gravity.

And yet within the scientific community the debate remains over the mechanisms of gravity, even though general relativity GR put it to rest a century ago. The new model, whenever it comes, will ensure that it contains the elements of GR as GR contained the elements of Newtonian gravity.

Science has in no way changed its view on evolution, that claim rest solely on religion. Indeed, ID is the creationists attempt to re-enter the debate having lost court case after court.

Science has continued to push god out of science and the creationists are responding with ID. Creationism claimed the universe was barely 6 000 years old, now ID (creationism-lite) claims it is 13.7 billion years old, but god still interferes or steers from time to time....until we push that idea out, then we'll get ID-lite.

Further to my earlier comment - thanks again Foyle. I have had a good look at the site you recommended, and found it to be totally relevant - so much so that the purchase of Law's book 'The War for Children's Minds' is top priority in my book buying budget!
As to the usual drivelling nonsense spewing out of the empty space where Runner's brain should be, it is utterly useless to try to explain to such a person that the very strength of the scientific method is the willingness to review and to change position in accord with new evidence. The central thrust of the reality of Darwinian evolutionary process, driven as it is by natural selection, is utterly beyond argument to anyone with the least modicum of intelligence (not to mention the most elementary understanding of modern biology) and has not changed substantially in principle since it was first postulated by Darwin (and Wallace) around 1860.

You're all in danger of being classed as old-fashioned reactionary dinosaurs, I'm afraid.

The term is no longer "Intelligent Design"

It is "Objective Origins Science"

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/MVCS_Science/

C'mon people, get with the programme.

You have to admit, it is a beautifully contrived title, classicaly Orwellian in its construction, the pinnacle of the propagandist's art.

Objective Origin Science.

"Objective". You have to admire the chutzpah. No more pussyfooting around with a concept as malleable as intelligence. Hey, there are even some people who actually believe that Darwin himself was intelligent.

Can't have that. No, from now on we talk only of objectivity.

"Origins": far better than Creation, no-one can doubt that we are all after the same thing - an objective search for our origins.

A little echo too, of "Origin of the Species". Nice touch.

"Science". Well, there you have it. Not conjecture based on faith in some external force guiding our every move, but good old "Science", that we know and love. Except of course we have to leave out such trivia as having to test our theories, but no matter.

We've called it "Science", and Science shall it be.

This is right up there with the Ministry of Love and the Ministry of Peace, as far as perversion of the language goes.

Intelligent Design is not objective, since by definition it postulates a religious presence in the formation of the universe. What is objective about that? It isn't science either, because science requires at least a testable hypothesis from which to establish a theory. The entire philosophy of ID relies on the absence of evidence, not its presence.

What I find most amusing is that most of the soft left believe that America is run by far right christian lunatics while at the same time much of the muslim world believes that America has been captured by pornographers, sodomites, adulterers and atheists. If you look at the likely next president of the US, John Mcain, you will find that he is, unarguably, neither. These simple, black and white prejudices are the constructs of simpletons and those with an axe to grind.

The strength of ill feeling towards, in fact the loathing of, fundamentalist Christians and their (perhaps a little bizarre) beliefs by the self same people won't bat an eyelid at the demands of muslim fundamentalists whose aims are at least as threatening to progressive types, never fails to mystify me. You won't see many christians calling for the stoning of adulterers (often women who've been raped) or the deaths of apostates. Under the Christian right, gays might not be able to be married but they aren’t likely to lose their heads either.

The soft left ignores the incorporation into western culture and law of many extremely anti-progressive, anti-liberal ideas and practices under the guise of multiculturalism. Its one thing for the muslims to think us infidels and unclean, another altogether for us to accept it. Take the handling of Korans in Guantanomo Bay. Wardens are required to handle the free books given to prisoners with plastic gloves to avoid contaminating them WTF?

How about cartoons? It’s not OK to depict the image of the prophet but it is OK to murder those that do.

When are the left going to wake up and realize that the real threat to their cherished progressive ideals isn’t the Christian fundamentalists “it’s the Muslim fundamentalists, stupid.”

Gym-Fish, I agree that “the very strength of the scientific method is the willingness to review and to change position in accord with new evidence”. However –

i) not all scientists follow this, and runner’s point might be that many scientists are too eager to publish the latest evolutionary step in their knowledge as “true”, and fail to mention that more evidence might later arrive that contradicts what they’re publishing;

ii) science is not the only arena in which learning happens. In Christianity at least – and, I suspect, in Judaism – the scriptures and their historical setting are under constant scholarly study and often reveal new ideas, some of which challenge the old. There are many Christians who are open to learn in this way. You may not have been claiming that learning is the monopoly of the non-religious, and I’m sorry if I’ve misunderstood you. Anyhow, it is not a monopoly.

Thanks TRTL. I think secular humanism would be a good starting point – the best I can think of, anyway. Everyone could just “deem” humans to be of high and equal value, and then proceed from there. They would just have to act consistently with that starting-point. It’s hard to think of a better place to start.

I trust it’s a proposition we’d all agree to? Even though we might have different reasons for believing it. I say that because, in a different thread, it seemed to emerge that evolutionists are not really capable of being humanists in this sense – which surprised me at the time – but they could pretend. That’s why I use the word “deem”. We have to start somewhere.

Paul L: You're right. No-one I've read here supports fundo Islam, but the Christian-bashing is certainly chronic. Mind you, it's not entirely without reason: eg look at the rebranding of ID that Pericles points out. Not admirable, is it?

Pax,

goodthief, if you have evidence that "evolutionsts are not really capable of being humanists" i think you had better damn well present it.

i don't pretend that the barbarity in the old testament stops a christian from being good. i would think you would extend a similar charity to those who simply happen to choose not to deny a firmly established scientific theory.

Hey Alan,

I think you may have been a little harsh on Billy Graham mate.

In an interview with David Frost he said;

"I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say. I think we have made a mistake by thinking the bible is a scientific book. The bible is not a book of science."...

"I believe that God created man and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point he took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create the man..."

Now runner and Boaz have gone to great lengths in other posts to question the Christianity of those who are open to the notion of evolution. If they are to be true to that position I feel they should be prepared to state that Billy Graham is not a Christian.

However you Alan should countenence the proposition that the sleepovers at the whitehouse may well serve to curb a creationist president's excesses. Besides I really do have a bit of time for the lanky old bugger.

Alan this article of yours was a banal polemic of a kind devastatingly destroyed most recently by Ross Douthat:

Theocracy, Theocracy, Theocracy!
http://www.firstthings.com/article.php3?id_article=130&var_recherche=theocracy

I notice this kind of thing is a hobby horse of yours and its about time someone told you to relax and widen your reading a bit.

Martin Ibn Warriq,

Ross Douthat's article, which you describe as devastating, is really just an extended book review that creates a straw man 'theocracy' and blows it over as if he has done something wonderful. You missed the whole point of Matheson's article.

An open mind would help.

Unsurprisingly, I too liked Alan Matheson's article.

Although there have been worrying signs of undue Christian influence in Australian politics of late, I remain confident that our strong culture of secularism and egalitarianism - no to mention a national antipathy to wowserism - will prevent us following our American masters completely in this respect.

Then again, Kevin Rudd seemed a little too eager to promote his Christian credentials during the last election campaign. His continued opposition to same sex marriages is one example of this.

I missed the point? Mmm ok perhaps you could give a 350 word precis of it with reference to the article I linked to.

What is the problem about Douthat referencing books that contain ideas Matheson wants us to adopt?

I'm all for open mindedness but not so much that your brains fall out Frankgol.

Dear Boaz
When I started to study science at a Marist Brothers school in 1966 I read Harry Messell's preface about how there might be a race of sub-terranean creatures on the moon who turn on their lights when it is night here on earth. I still think it is a better theory than ID.

martin, the article you linked argues (correctly, if boringly) that shouts of "theocracy!" in america are quite silly. but matheson shouts no such thing: he is quietly pointing out the influence of religious fundamentalist thought, and the danger of this. thus, the suggestion that he is "devastatingly destroyed" is simply absurd.

well, 250 words left. what shall we talk about? how about your arguments on another thread that morality comes from god: "Doing good and avoiding evil is meaningful only within a religious framework."

is that religious fundamentalist nonsense relevant here, or should we leave it for another day?

Hi Prez :) c'mon.. that was a wasted_post.

I can't get my head into the preface thing.. Messell was serious?

I like the way Perilous ferrets out all this interesting info. He gallantly brought to light the $220k Salary package of 'our foremost povery campaigner' (Tim Costello) from the annual World Vision report.
Now..he has blessed us with this 'Objective Origins' thingy.. great work P.

Objective means "Not" injecting biases into the observations.

Now.. if an individual comes to a set of facts with the bias "THIS' understanding is ruled out before we start" (i.e. that God created)
That is hardly objective.

Without even trying, I can make it tougher for the "it can be ANYthing BUT 'God created'.... crowd.

I suggest that if God has done things in the world, such as reported in the Old and New Testaments, and if those things are repeated in history over time, then there is a strong case to INCLUDE the supernatural into our assessment of objective information.

It is SPECIALLY relevant to those (like myself) who have experienced that supernatural power in healing.

The problem of skeptics anonymous is, a bondage to 'scientific' rules which include 'repeatablity in a laboratory'. Now in the case of instances of healing, this would never happen, because it is divine activity not human, and is not subject to human arrogance or whim.

So it leaves is pretty much in 2 camps. The 'haves' and the 'have nots' Those who have faith, (often backed up by real world miraculous experience) based on the solid and firm Word of God, and those who for reasons known only to themselves "Faithless".

I don't see much to be gained by our mob trying to 'prove' to the other mob that what we have or what we believe is real, because to them its all about 'faith/belief in fairy tales'.. in Victoria, saying such is illegal :) because it mocks, and holds up our beliefs to public ridicule. I'm fine with that, because my God is more robust than to need the defense of a vilification law.

Yet another "well, duh" moment, Boaz. You're full of them, aren't you?

"Now.. if an individual comes to a set of facts with the bias "THIS' understanding is ruled out before we start" (i.e. that God created)
That is hardly objective."

No, indeed it would not be objective Boaz.

But you are making the traditional ID logical mis-step of claiming that approaching a topic without bias in favour of divine intervention, means that you must perforce have ruled it out.

That isn't what "objective" means, Boaz. Objective means that you make no assumptions before you start, one way or the other.

The underlying problem is that if you are proposing that ID is "taught", the necessary prerequisite is the pre-supposition that "God did it". It is, however, not at all necessary to assume that "God didn't do it" if you are being objective. If he did, it will emerge from the evidence, and not from the apparent lack of evidence, which is the pillar upon which ID stands.

It is nothing more than a cheap conjuring trick - "look, nothing up my sleeve", when the rabbit is already in the false floor of the top hat.

Your case, as you are honest enough to admit, rests on some pretty thin ice.

>>in the case of instances of healing, this [requirement for repeatablity in a laboratory] would never happen, because it is divine activity not human<<

Which gives the human mind freedom and licence to invent anything it chooses to support the case for divine intervention, since it is by definition untestable.

No contest, really. Regrettably, it wouldn't constitute a very convincing defence in law.

"Your honour, when I planted them, they were geraniums. I think the Lord must have turned them into cannabis plants when I wasn't looking"

Martin Ibn Warriq: "... perhaps you could give a 350 word precis of it [Matheson's article] with reference to the article I linked to."

Matheson's prose is perfectly plain. Why don't you just go and re-read it - this time with an open mind?

Ross Douthat's article - the one you referred us to; the one you said was a devastating put-down of Matheson - was merely a review of some American books about religion and politics in the USA. It said nothing about the possible impact of the transfer of hard-line religion into Australian politics.

What do you think, for example, of his claim that the agenda of the American 'Religious Right' will become predominant in Australian politics?

What do you make of Matheson's conclusion that politicians in Australia can continue to depend on the complicity and silence of the churches when it comes to educational disadvantage because of self-interest?

What's your reaction to Matheson's fear that 'Intelligent Design', that 'anti intellectual threat of the first order', will increasingly take its place in science classes in Australia?

What do YOU think?

Don’t be so bad tempered, bushbasher, you were damn well involved in the damn discussion. The topic was <Morality and the 'new atheism'> by Benjamin O’Donnell (1 February 2008); I started posting at page 3. You might recall how surprised I was when the evolutionists failed to deliver on the special status of human beings – something I think is needed to get humanism underway. For example, Yabby said “Nothing significant about us, just a bit larger brain than other species and superior vocal chords”. Celivia said, “So, I’d say that human beings ‘should be’ considered by human beings because of the need to survive ... for self-preservation. There is no reason from an evolutionary [point-of-view] why humans have more value than any other species or more right to survive.” Yabby and Celivia are here being honest and consistent as evolutionists.

Remember, I was surprised: I never thought evolutionists would have much reason to believe humans are special, but I thought they’d believe it anyway.

btw, by “evolutionist”, I don’t mean someone who simply believes that evolution happened (happens) – as that would include me – but someone who believes that’s all there is to us. Besides, I’m not saying evolutionists are inhumane: I’m sure a lot of them are in fact very humane.

However, let’s not lose the plot. My suggestion in the post above is that we all make a decision that human beings are of high and equal value, and act accordingly. Or, that we act “as if” they are of high and equal value. This is something I think we should agree on – to get out of the mire of disagreeing about our reasons – and we don’t have to get sidetracked. Do you think the starting-point I suggest is a good idea?

Pax,

csteele

'Now runner and Boaz have gone to great lengths in other posts to question the Christianity of those who are open to the notion of evolution. If they are to be true to that position I feel they should be prepared to state that Billy Graham is not a Christian.'

Billy Graham and every other person on earth will bow their knee and confess Jesus Christ as Lord. If it is not while you are alive it certainly will be when you die. As far as I know Billy agrees with this. Jesus will not only be declared as Lord but also as our Creator. Hopefully He will be your Lord before that day. God's love has made it possible for a wretch like you and me and Boaz to be pardoned.

goodthief, i very much agree with your starting point. in fact the ability to agree upon this is the very reason i was so astonished and angered by your post. it seemed to suggest otherwise.

what really disgusts me is when religious people claim not just a moral superiority, but a moral monopoly. and, there is no shortage of such who post here. boaz and runner and martin are openly and explicitly in this camp. i distinctly had *not* regarded you as in this camp, and your post made me wonder.

i'm too tired to do the analysis now. i'm willing to accept that i misinterpreted your post. however, i think your use of the term "evolutionist" (and possibly "humanist", too) is not at all standard, and encourages such confusion. and, even using the terms in your manner, i have some difficulty with your post.

i'll write more tomorrow if it seems there's a point. as you say, pax.

bushbasher and others,

I realise many of you know each other better than I know you, so you may regard what follows as either trite or pointless, but I wish to propose something –

That we decide together on a common idea as a starting point. That human beings are, equally, of such high value that we insist that they all always be treated with respect. Or similar.

I know that this idea might need clarification. I know our reasons for subscribing to it are different, and often incompatible. And I know what I’m suggesting probably seems a little saccharine and not at all novel. I’m just a little weary of debating the deeper matters about which we know we disagree, and I’d prefer to generate a message that is potentially constructive.

Can atheists and theists, and different manner of theists, stomach being together on common human ground? Doubtless we will continue to proselytise, but this will have to be done with civility, in keeping with the principle subscribed to, and (I suggest) it will not be our primary interest.

What do you say?

i) Is this worth trying?
ii) Is the suggested principle, or something like it, worth a try?

Pax,

BUSHBASHER....its time to give you a bit of a bash :)

You_said:

"what really disgusts me is when religious people claim not just a moral superiority, but a moral monopoly"

1/ MORAL SUPERIORITY. why yes, of course.. we 'Christians' are far better than you.. we are holier, nicer, more loving, and so it goes on....

NOT!

IF... were regarded ourselves as morally superior, the above is how it would be expressed! Can you honestly find any post by me, GoodThief, Runner or others where we say such ludicrous things about ourselves?

I've said on many occasion, that we are simply sinners who are saved by undeserved grace! When we speak of holiness, we point to the Lord Jesus, to God the Father.. to the Holy Spirit.. NOT...to ourselves.

Its not about 'we' being morally superior.. the only thing I see in our writings is that CHRIST is holier.. than all of us.

2. MORAL MONOPOLY. Hmm.. on this one you are closer to the mark.
But not quite there. What we claim is this:
a) Secularists, atheists.. do not have a foundation for morality, other than simply making it up. No God=No moral foundation .. its only 'existence' and our varied responses to it. We DON'T say 'atheists are immoral' 'secularists are degenerate' we just say "they don't have a foundation" for morality which is universally applicable or unchanging. The most an honest atheist can say about behavior is 'it is legal/illegal' but they cannot say it is 'moral/immoral'.

b) Christians (and those of religious faith) do have.. a foundation.
We might not agree with each one, but we do at least have a reason to believe that such and such is 'wrong' in the moral sense.

OUR FOUNDATION. is not 'rules' but a 'Ruler'.. Christ Himself. We have the commandments as a guide, but in order to live them out, we need "The" Guide.. the Good Shepherd.. the one who gives us 'life indeed'....The Light of the world, the Bread of life, the Way, the True Vine, The Resurrection and the Life, The Door.

Runner, simple question. Is Billy Graham a Christain?

goodthief, good luck. i'll hold my fire, but from boaz's post, i can discern no common ground.

csteele,

'Runner, simple question. Is Billy Graham a Christain?'

He proclaims to be a believer and I have seen no evidence to the contrary. So as far as I know yes but then again there is only One Person who could answer that definitely and it ain't me.

runner, you say we'll proclaim christ once we die.

Problem is, you can't back that up, so I consider this claim worthless.

I can just as easily say that once you die, you'll get on your hands and knees and worship Ikea furniture.

It's a bit insulting. I won't pray to your god. Not now, not after I die, and you've no right to be so patronising.

Goodthief - I'm open to people proselytising so long as they're polite enough to back off when I politely ignore them.

And don't use patronising language such as runners, which simply put, is just: "No matter what I say, I'm right. I can't prove it, but you can't disprove it, so I'm going to keep on saying it."

It's insulting to other people's beliefs. I'm fine with you believing that after we die we'll all live in some sugary shang-ri-la, but don't try to tell me I'm going to get on my knees for your brand of god which I don't believe in.

Or at least, when you do, you better expect people to be affronted. A genuinely blessed 'meek' christian person wouldn't say such things when they know they're just insulting people and are going to provoke ill will.

Well runner I am pleased.

Despite your description of evolution in past posts as a pseudo science, hopelessly flawed, the biggest scientific fraud of our age, dumb, unscientific, only for the gullible, and the curious statement “If evolution was true then nearly all of us are cannibals!”, you have found it in your heart to permit a man to wear the label of Christian even though he does not dismiss the evolutionary theory.

If I were cheeky I might call this an evolutionary moment.

TRTL

It is actually the bible that says that every knee shall bow before the Lord Jesus Christ not me.

No one is forcing you to do that now. My only backing up of this statement is the bible and my conscience.

I take it that you along with millions of others are insulted by Jesus words. He claimed to be the only way to God I am sorry about that and hope that one day you will find the truth. Forgiveness is available to all those who call on His name. There is no other name by which man can be saved from their sins.

csteele,

I am unsure of your point. I have no doubt evolution is all the things I have described it as. The fact that some Christians see no incompatibility to true science and the bible I don't understand. To some degree I think they are trying to be man pleasers rather than God pleasers. How God judges that is up to Him. Any person with the Spirit of God in them knows Jesus not only as Saviour but also Creator.

I do not know runner or Boaz_david or any other of the posters who support religion but I know that anyone who thinks their own religion is the bee’s knees is a few sandwiches short of a picnic and are potentially a danger to all society.
As for believing that morals or ethics came into being through the Old Testament I find it hard to believe that modern people can be so ignorant of the real history of homo sapiens. Brilliant thinking scientific investigators in their various fields have established a really clear line of descent from Australopithecus afarensis through A.africanus to Homo habilis thence to H. ergaster to H. erectus to H. heidelbergensis to us, Homo sapiens.
That transition took 4-5 million years and along the way we developed ethical rules that allowed us to get along within our small hunting groups and where space allowed to avoid slaughtering those in other similar but competing separate groups. It was only in the last stage when our enlarged brain allowed later writing that our forefathers were able to write down the rules which they thought had proven advantageous to that date. Some of those rules were rather nutty such as the first few commandments of the early Israelites or the one which states “Thou shall no allow a sorceress to live.” (Women always got the rough end.)
We need far more sophisticated ethics today to cope with the problems of this age or humanity won’t last long enough to fulfil its full potential. Or maybe some of you would prefer that we wipe ourselves out by disease or famine, as some religions seem to prefer, rather that limit our growth to prevent such an outcome. And maybe we should reduce our waste of fossil energy (stored sunlight) so that future generations have a share of the world’s raw materials.
I deplore the approach to good works and ethics taken by the demagogues of the various religions.
We are better served by the writings of such as Peter Singer and his “How are we to Live” than by any religious writings.

B_D, I hope you’ll believe me when I say that I agree whole-heartedly with everything you said in your last post. Thank you for writing it.

While I believe we Christians have excellent reason to believe that bearing God’s image (along with the awful trouble He’s taken to maintain its shine) makes all human beings immeasurably valuable, and equally so, I also believe that persuading several of our OLO adversaries/colleagues of this reasoning isn’t going to happen any time soon, even if they agree with the conclusion.

So, I’m looking for a workable starting point. A proposition which we all regard as true, even though we believe it for radically different reasons.

We can, in subscribing to the proposition, put our very different reasons aside, in the interests of constructive discussion and action.

If you and I find the other posters' reasons for believing in human value unimpressive, why should that stop the process? Impressing us is not the issue, but believing something true and important (human value) is. They find our reasoning unimpressive, too, and will have to lump our reasons just as we lump theirs.

Like you (I imagine), I do not wish to add to Our Lord’s troubles by treating Him with disrespect, especially in public. However, I don’t see this proposal as putting Our Lord “aside” in any substantial sense – something that would be virtually impossible for us, I suspect. People in the discussion know very well with Whom we stand.

The question remains - for atheist evolutionsists, creationist Christians, other Christians, other people altogether - do we believe that humans are of enormous and equal value. I suspect that we do, and I'd like to hear us say so. We only need to be silent about our reasons for a moment.

What do you think?

Pax,

Hey good thief, I'll play.

I'm not sure where I would fit in any of your categories but you can slot me in where-ever you like.

I do believe human beings are special primarily because we are part of this little teeming ball of life we call Earth and at first glance it would appear to be a pretty cold universe out there.

At the same time I believe that two of the greatest examples of human vanity is the belief that God looks like us and secondly that he(?) created the billions of stars in our galaxy and the billions of galaxies in our visible universe, which is 13 odd billion light years across, just for us! Wow, vanity of vanities!

It then becomes a question for me about how special I think human life is compared to the rest of the species on the Earth. We obviously rate some quite highly because we countenance the shooting of poachers in African game reserves which I admit to being a little troubled by.

That being said if I were given a God like choice between the human race and the rest of the Earth's animal kingdom in its entirety I honestly think I would end up telling the family to order one of Mr Branson's spaceships.

So special?, yes indeed, but only up to a point.

Despite my better judgement, i'll play too.

goodthief: "The question remains - for atheist evolutionsists, creationist Christians, other Christians, other people altogether - do we believe that humans are of enormous and equal value. "

Yes.

Boazy: "Secularists, atheists.. do not have a foundation for morality, other than simply making it up. No God=No moral foundation "

What Boazy doesn't aeem to understand is that those of who don't share his God delusion, do so because we think that his God (or any of the others on offer) were "made up".

csteele, that was a lovely, human post.

Hello csteele, Thanks for playing. I won’t trouble to classify you, if you don’t mind. Similarly, I won’t take issue with your remarks about God.

By “humans are special”, I certainly don’t mean other creatures are of low value, just less value than humans. If it matters, I think everything in nature has high value and that we humans should generally choose to preserve rather than consume. (People like me often use the word "stewardship" rather than "ownership" to describe the human position in relation to the world.) If I were to say why I believe these things, we’d end up in an argument and I’m trying to suspend controversy just for a little while. The issue of the value of other species or life generally (whether for their own sake or because of their relationship with humans) may not be far down the track, but it’s not the starting point, so I propose to leave it for now. (Mind you, I'm not in charge here.)

Am I right to assume that you regard each human as equally valuable, so that each should be given equal respect?

Hello Foyle, Are you responding to my invitation above? You say, “or humanity won’t last long enough to fulfil its full potential”. Should I take it that you believe that it is desirable that humanity’s full potential be fulfilled because humans are of high value? If so, do you regard each human as equally valuable?

Hello CJ Morgan, Thanks for playing. So much for you “better judgement”. :)

bushbasher, Where you at, girl? You waiting for B_D to declare?

The rest of the gang: Where you at?

Pax,

goodthief, sorry for the confusion. i thought i had pre-declared when i wrote early on that i very much agreed with your starting point. so, i'm playing, but i'm not sure of the game. in any case, i doubt i could begin any better than with csteele's post.

I suggest to runner and anyone of like mind that they do something to improve their knowledge. At the site below there are regular blogs by a brilliant writer and biologist. Earlier archived articles are easily retrieved.
If each of you read and understand even part of what is written in these blogs the standard of debate on OLO should improve dramatically. The argument between creation and evolution is over and creation lost!
http://judson.blogs.nytimes.com/

GOODTHIEF... hi :) yes.. to answer your question, of course. We can agree on that. ("Humans are of immense value and equal")

But dear Grand Poo Bar FOYLE need some gentle guidance though *punch* :) just kidding Foyle but after all you DID say:

"anyone who thinks their own religion is the bee’s knees is a few sandwiches short of a picnic and are potentially a danger to all society."

You have a point there, but there is a very important flaw in it.

You seem to feel that 'any' religion is dangerous to society.

Can you show me something from the New Testament, in particular the teaching of the Lord Jesus, which is a danger? and where those tho believe it, are also a danger? and would you mind unpacking your 'vilification' of various classes of people (Christians included) where you are holding us up to 'serious ridicule contempt and inciting hatred' towards us, (an act which has cost some people up to a million :) by saying we are ALL a danger to society.. ..

You know.. that was the KEY element in Justice Higgins decision against Nalia and Scott...that they did not differentiate between 'mainstream' Muslims and 'radical' Muslims who were a 'danger to society'

Don't worry, we won't sue you :) we are used to it, but an apology would be nice.

Shucks bushbasher thanks.

I admit to finding a lovely sense of poetry in the words;

5 Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,
6 Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth! (Psalm 113:5,6)

However you may be disappointed with the following.

Goodthief,

"Am I right to assume that you regard each human as equally valuable, so that each should be given equal respect?"

No you can not, because truthfully I don't.

I'm not even sure respect follows value.

I value my family more than other human beings and I certainly respect some humans more than others.

What I would do expect of myself and my society/government is a respect of the rights of all humans to live their lives and to pursue their dreams and aspirations as free as possible from preventable disease, war, violence, bigotry, poor education, intimidation etc within a caring society.

And in a sense I expect better from my government than from myself in that I wouldn't want a leadership that put my family above any other.

This may be what you are asking of your God.

bushbasher, you’re right, you had declared. The game is just looking for common ground – in case it can be a launching pad for more common ideas. I think a lot of stuff that’s good for the world would follow from this common ground if many people consciously occupied it.

Thank you B_D. I'm not surprised you're in, but I'm glad.

csteele, This value/respect is not dependent on personal bonds, but is objective. There may even be something artificial about it. That’s why I used the word “deem” in an earlier discussion. I’m hoping that we can agree that “There’s just something about humans” that makes it compellingly reasonable to treat them “as if” they are of enormous value and equally so.

Nothing to do with bonds and feelings. Something that ignores the many differences we are conscious of, and ignores the very impressive flaws we all possess in our disposition and our output - just “something”. And, to make agreement possible, something that we don’t have to trouble ourselves to explain. And something which we all should recognise, and adhere to, even though we are likely to be more gracious to those we love or like.

I’m saying we’re equal in possessing this “something”. You good with that?

I see your point about aspirations as being down the track, but probably not far. Mind you, as I’ve said, I’m not in charge, and I’m nervously making this up as I go along.

I expect this kind of armchair philosophy would be tedious to some: it's the possibility of consensus that I think is exciting. Esp on OLO, where we look around and find ourselves agreeing with those who are normally our adversaries.

Anyone else around?

Pax,

Boaz_David; It is the ‘them and us’ complex which flows from the belief that one set of faith beliefs is true and that all other faith beliefs are in some way wrong and inferior that makes particular sets of faith beliefs dangerous to society. Read the history of religious persecution and you will find numerous examples where those who held that their beliefs were true exterminated those whom they considered, held heretical beliefs. The Inquisition is one example but some of the Protestant leaders and groups at that time weren’t much better.
I accept nothing on faith unless it is from a well educated specialist in some scientific field I know little about. I prefer to believe only those propositions for which I can determine clear supporting evidence.
Having read widely on evolution I see masses of supporting evidence for modern evolutionary theory which is of course Darwin’s Theory, modified as all scientific theories are when evidence is found which extends or modifies the initial theory. Such modifications occurred when both mutation and DNA added to Darwin’s explanation. This is the point I was making when I drew attention to the Judson blog in my later post.

goodthief, you suggest that value/respect is objective, but i don't know how to think of it that way. certainly, my attitude to people, and my attitude to my attitude is subjective: that's somehow the point!

But perhaps it's a matter of personal perspective versus global perspective. csteele is obviously right: we are closer - in various ways - to some people than others, and we tend to value those people more. but there is a global view: we know that all people value others from their world, and there's no intrinsic superiority to our valuation of people. that's somehow the objective framework: there's a common basis to the way we value, and thus we can value others' evaluation. (people, please please resist inserting your god as an answer here: it'll just cause grumpiness).

two more quick points. first, i think there's something ambiguous in your use of the word "respect". i simply do not respect dick cheney as much as nelson mandella, to take one example. but there is some kind of acknowledgement-respect that, no matter what, cheney retains his humanity. in that sense, i can "respect" cheney as a human being (albeit i find it tough when he refuses to behave likewise, and argues for the torture of human beings).

the second point is that i share csteele's nervousness with drawing a line between humans and other living creatures. though i appreciate your characterization of "stewardship", and agree to some extent, i don't think it suffices. i'm just not sure i can agree that non-humans are of lower value. when i hear of young punks torturing a helpless animal, i know who i value more. but i'm not a vegetarian, i swat flies. i'll admit i'm confused.

Oh no, it’s unravelling already – that was quick.

bushbasher, I promised not to bring God into this discussion.

Perhaps we won't agree about the objective and subjective issue. Put it this way, if I were to say “People are not equal, so there’s no need to treat them as if they are”, you’d disagree, wouldn’t you? I mean, disagree not simply because you feel differently about it but because you regard my view as mistaken.

I don’t think I’m looking for anything better than what you’re offering Dick Cheney.

Other species. I agree it’s extremely dangerous (for the other species) to speak of “less valuable” because the more brutish humans see that as a green light for all sorts of abuse. Given what we [might] believe to be the extraordinary value of humans, simply to be less valuable doesn’t mean other species are of low value. I’m quite happy to regard everything living as valuable – everything that exists, if you like – and to regard many species as being of very high value. I regard humans as more valuable, that’s all. So, when I speak of social justice and equality, I’m definitely talking about humans only – because of the undefined “something” they/we possess. I think this is what humanism stands for.

I’m not trying to persuade you to subscribe to this starting point. Just inviting. It’s your call.

I think this discussion has just about dried up. So, I just hope that those of us who “played” will recall that we occupied this common ground, if only briefly.

Pax,

I dunno goodthief, I think there's a fundamental attitude adjustment that humanity needs to make, and part of that is this ideal of putting ourselves on a pedestal as you suggest - even if we acknowledge animals are valuable.

Not wanting to go all 'Gaia-greenie' on the folks here, but ask any biologist about ecosystems and how every species has an ecological niche.

I dunno if we can really regard people as anything more than the animals around us - of course there is inevitably a built in favouritism to our species and I'd never condone putting an animal's life above a human - but we really do need an attitude adjustment.

Firstly, we can talk of intelligence and human achievement all we want, but when we get back to the brass tacks of our ecosystem, we really aren't anything special save for perhaps two survival attributes - intelligence and opposable thumbs.

I think people view humans and animals as separate, or when they're being generous, rungs on a ladder with us at the top.

I do muse as to why we should be better though.

Is it intelligence? Then why do we react with abhorrence when one person says they're 'better' than someone, just because they're smarter.

Is a dolphin then 'better' than a goat?

Is our species superior because of morality? Ask the species we eat and the systems we destroy.

Is it because we can love?
Have you seen a horse nurture its foal? What about a dog that cares for its puppies, or the waterbirds that mate for life.

I'm no vegan - I accept I'm an omnivore and a creature of habit and I don't judge on this basis, any more than I judge the lions for eating gazelles, though I know I have a choice and they don't.

The thing is, we're just one part of a system, and I don't think we're the special beings we're programmed to believe we are.

Accepting this leads to a more humane approach to our environment, and the creatures around us.

hi goodthief,

i agree the thread seems dried up. so, i'll make this my last post here, and just make a couple quick comments.

i think it was an interesting exercise trying to find that common ground. in fact, for me, i never doubted i had that common ground with you (minus one confusing post). we may argue around the edges, or definitions, and stray into discussing peter singer et al, but i don't think that changes the main point.

but, i think it's also worth reflecting upon who was willing to play, and who was not. and i think it's worth considering, what people regard as fundamental.

see you on a future thread, no doubt.

Sorry good thief, I’m not sure why I struggled to get over the first hurdle in this consensus exercise of yours and clarity has never been my strong point.

I hope it is not just a case of semantics but I didn’t agree that it has “Nothing to do with bonds and feelings.”. I think notions of respect and value had everything to do with bonds and feelings, which ultimately reflects who we are and exactly what needs to be celebrated about us.

My head is sometimes with the Houyhhnms but I have to face the fact that my heart will probably always be with the Yahoos.

However I liked and accepted bushbasher’s notion of a global view of value so went with a tentative yes to your question especially since you had acknowledged your ’something’ is somewhat artificial.

Don’t get me wrong, I find the human race utterly beguiling and bewitching. I feel a deep empathy with/for most of it and if it wasn’t such a messy word I might even call it love. But I think that would be the same for the majority of us around the world, regardless of creed. That may be where your “compelling” comes from but it is probably not reasonable nor rational.

I just see us as a bunch of entities parachuted into this reality with, almost cruelly it would seem, just enough conceptual power to really screw with us but with never enough to give us any chance of really figuring it all out. The fact that so many seem to manage without jumping lemming like off the nearest cliff does humble me.

So when you asked me to ignore “the many differences we are conscious of“, and ignore “the very impressive flaws we all possess in our disposition and our output” I couldn’t since these are the very qualities that endear the human race to me and precisely why I ‘value’ them.

Damn, I think I’m coming down with a God complex. Oops, sorry bushbasher.

Thanks for the effort regardless.

bushbasher, See you next time.

TRTL, I can only respond by abandoning the above exercise of sporting with humanist common ground, which I’m reluctant to do. If I didn’t believe in God, and in certain things that flow from that, I’d probably agree with pretty much everything in your post. If I were an atheist evolutionist, where what you see is what you get, I would have great difficulty attributing to humans the kind of common value I’ve been talking about. As I am a Christian, you probably know where my ideas of human value come from – and it’s not based on what humans do or can do. So, I’m not surprised that Boaz was happy to subscribe. To keep faith with the recent exercise, I won’t trouble you further with the rationale.

For atheists, I can only surmise that the certain “something” we’ve been toying with is something we intuit –something that science will not recognise until it’s more evident. Yet, CJ Morgan, one of the more determined empiricists on OLO, was happy to subscribe to the humanist starting point too.

If it helps, I don’t believe that human superiority means they are somehow above the world altogether or separate from it. Further, I had suggested that high human value be “deemed”, recognising that there was an artificiality about the exercise. Anyhow, it was just an experiment.

csteele, Yes, artificial will have to do, as it was just meant to be a starting point. As for rational, it depends on your more fundamental beliefs. Certainly, the idea flows without effort from my fundamental beliefs, but I’m aware that those beliefs are contentious. And we’ll have to agree to differ about the significance of bonds and feelings – to this discussion, I mean – and about the significance of human flaws (I meant things like greed and violence).

In fact, these qualifications are so substantial that you might not be a Yes, after all? Which is fine, of course: I’m not saying everyone has to be a humanist, but just checking to see who might be.

Pax,

Hi goodthief. Bin away. Back now.

What an interesting question you posed, and what an unsatisfactory set of responses.

Of course we are not special. We share a substantial percentage of our DNA with chimpanzees...

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/100/12/7181.pdf

...but have clearly evolved just a tiny bit further in the brain department. So we can discuss, argue, create, hypothesize etc. slightly more than apes and fish, but that difference is really quite small.

The difference does allow us, however, to make significantly more searching enquiries into our circumstances than any of our furry or fishy friends, and has also contributed to the creation of what we now call "civilization".

But looked at from a slightly longer perspective, the time during which we as thinking and philosophizing human beings will have existed is but a cosmic flash - lo! we arrive, toddle around a bit, procreate a bit, create stuff for a while then poof! we are gone. Looked at as an episode in the constantly changing universe (or multiverse, if you are so inclined) we are little more than insignificant specks.

Don't get me wrong, I am totally excited by the concept of living for a while, enjoying the fruits of evolution that allow me to experience music, love, art, joy, people and all the rest of the paraphernalia of life. But I cannot bring myself to believe that we are anything more than a delightful cosmic accident, an anomaly at one end of the bell-curve of universal possibilities.

I am far too late I know to get any serious responses, but it would be interesting to know, from those who have said "of course we are special", what exactly that "specialness" is, and what impact it has on the way they look at the world.

Goodthief has deemed that we are more special as a species but look who is making the call, a human! (You are a human goodthief aren't you?) I imagine dolphins might think of themselves as pretty special.

We have heard of them saving humans from drowning and displaying great gentleness around pregnant women but if a dolphin had to make a choice between another of its own species and a human I'm not sure I would be putting my house on the human.

So where does that leave us? Probably exactly where goodthief wanted us to be. The only way we can truly regard ourselves as exceptional is if another entity altogether decides that we are.

Goodthief has his other entity and calls it God (bushbred has dropped out so hopefully this is okay), but even he has his favourites. Goodthief's God's special humans are the Jewish people.

However if we feel we instinctively regard the human race as special (I am going to wear that word out) that’s fine, but it doesn't rationally follow that in the grand scheme of things that we are, even with our conceptual abilities. To do so would surely mean discounting the possibility of any other more advanced life forms in what Paul Davies regards as a very life friendly universe.

Goodthief’s example of human ‘flaws’ like greed and violence are so much part of the human psyche that overcoming them often appears to be more of a flaw than indulging in them. Going to war for oil is a case in point. When we view a man like Ghandi he garners our respect precisely because he overcame those very human traits. If he didn’t have them in the first place then his behaviour would have been far less impressive.

Indeed who is the more impressive human, a vegan shopping in an organic vegetable store or an alcoholic at an A.A. meeting?

Do these views disqualify me as a humanist?

Pericles & csteele, I never thought an evolutionist would have a reason to regard humans as valuable and equal. By “evolutionist”, I mean, someone who believes that we humans are NOTHING OTHER THAN evolved beings. If that’s all we are, then I think two things follow:

i) we’re nothing special, just the latest thing on our evolutionary thread. There’s no objective reason to distinguish between humans and other species. We're more complex/intelligent, but who said that decides absolute value?

ii) we’re not equal – the differences we observe (in strength, intelligence, skill, beauty, disposition etc) are not just real but are as important as we decide they are. If we decide intelligence is the criterion, then applying that criterion within the human species means we can treat more intelligent people as more valuable than less intelligent people.

I see these as unsatisfactory outcomes.

People like me regard humans as being made in God’s image, and being loved by God. This, if true, gives me a reason for regarding humans as extremely valuable and equally valuable – as the God link trumps all other considerations. Doesn’t mean God exists, of course (unlikely that I’ll try to convince you of this), but it means the belief provides a framework for what I call humanism (including social justice).

What do you think?

If it matters, I wasn’t trying to lure anyone into a polemical trap of any kind. I privately believed the atheists online would have no reason to regard humans as important or equal, but hoped they’d believe it anyway so that we could occupy this as common ground, and move forward. Some believe it anyway – I think, because it’s compellingly believable, which is stronger than simply saying that “It works” (in evolutionary terms).

I don't agree, if this is what is being suggested, that reducing the incidence of greed and violence is a bad idea. I think it would be a good thing.

Pax,

Mmm goodthief…Am I the only one to note the contradiction between your 2 points?

I also note your emphasis “NOTHING OTHER THAN” but it is not mine. As someone who accepts the truth of an evolutionary history I think we are a glorious part of a planetary ecosystem and one of the many amazing products of the evolutionary mechanism.

The thought that most of the atoms and all of the molecules in my body having their origins in exploding stars is one of the more dramatic things I can contemplate and surely must have greater import than a casual creative wave of a godly arm.

May I remind you again of Psalm 113:5,6

5 Who is like unto the LORD our God, who dwelleth on high,
6 Who humbleth himself to behold the things that are in heaven, and in the earth!

While you glorify your God I would be more than happy to slap a beer in his hand and sit on the front porch with him in humbled solidarity over the grandeur of the universe.

Are you sure you are not a theist rather than a humanist good thief?

Interesting, csteele, thanks. By “nothing other than”, I didn’t mean to downplay the natural explanation. I’m happy to join you in rhapsodising about the process and the products of evolution.

It’s just that I also believe in God, and I also like to rhapsodise about God. It makes sense: if I regard the cosmos as wonderful and if I believe that God dreamed it up and, somehow, generated it, then how could I not regard God as wonderful? (Again, I’m not trying to persuade you that God exists.)

Not sure what to make of the psalm (excuse me), but I like your point about the beer. Certainly, I believe that far too many theists – Christians, in my case – set God at an enormous distance. By “glorifying” Him, for instance.

I think we should give credit where it’s due – including to God – but I don’t think God wants to be at a distance. Jesus, according to us Christians, establishes this very clearly.

And consider Genesis 3:8:

“They heard the sound of the Lord God walking in the garden at the time of the evening breeze …”.

I know things then took a turn for the worse, but my point is that it reads as though the sound of God walking nearby was familiar. I think God has this kind of close, companionable relationship in mind. Like your beer on the front porch.

Consider also the first verse of the First Letter of John in the New Testament, who describes Christ as “what was from the beginning, what we have heard, what we have seen with our eyes, what we have looked at and touched with our hands”.

This is getting sanctimonious, and I’m sorry. Just wanting to point out that Christians do not regard God as remote – at least, not merely remote.

Yes, I’m sure I’m a theist. Oddly, though, it may be that God is a humanist of sorts.

Pax,

Well goodthief I'm sure we might be able to find a seat on the porch for you with the two of us, I may even give up the right hand side in difference to your faith.

As you would both be my guests I would be happy to keep away from any discussion about sex or religion but I'm wondering, since Genesis literally relates a story about one of the gods falling in love with one of the many human races, if a question about what his mates were up to would be out of order?

And who knows but by the third or fourth beer, remembering we have become god-like ourselves through our knowledge of good and evil, God might just want to unburden himself a little about his glitches and his propensity to do evil, especially that one around Noah's time. Suprising amount of water required to clean that slate!

Perhaps a sympathetic response might be to let him know what a human-like reaction it was and that while we could not condone such an incredibly violent act it we could at least understand it.

However lets agree not to talk about it unless he raises the subject and instead stick the feet up on the rail and enjoy the night sky sound in the knowledge that in the 'grand scheme of things' it doesn't really matter that much.