DSM,

"Naturalism (the philosophy that underpins evolution, namely that matter and energy are all there is) cannot provide ethics,"

Why not? It certainly can't do worse than the stilted "thou shalt not" of the Christian Church, whose abuse of children until recently was "endemic" and who still tries to cover it up.

From the paedophiles of the catholic brothers to the serial adulters such as Jerry Falwell, the church proposes rigid, ridiculous guidelines, and fails to follow them. A case of do as I say, not as I do.

The bible is as hopeless as a moral compass as it is a record of our past.

Secondly your quote "The atheist cannot put forward, within his own framework, a justification for why reasoning is trustworthy, or even worthwhile. Of course, as a Christian, I believe we can reason as human beings created in the image of God."

Is such a mind blowingly stupid circular argument. The main assumption is that without any ordained purpose for existance of the universe, reason cannot exist.

Reason does not require a pre ordained purpose, in fact it works better without it. Reason takes the facts and uses logic to draw a conclusion. Applying a pre ordained purpose to the process means that the conclusion is largely drawn before the facts are even examined, and is faith not reason.

The moment you need to use a fairy tale unsupported by facts as the basis for your rationale, you have abandoned reason.

Reason is to faith as black is to white.

katieO

And undidly offers: “Intelligent children from the religious classes can escape and are welcomed into the tech world. “

Which doesn’t really explain why a large Government department pays me to be a computer programmer, and further, that I was a programmer first and became a believer later (nor, necessarily, assume that I fit this exclusive category of intelligence, or that I continue to be welcomed in the "tech world" since I converted, I suppose).

Posted by katieO, Thursday, 21 May 2009 9:46:27 AM

So you were first a computer programmer THEN a believer and you do not have the insight to understand you now have the equivalent of a computer virus in your brain.
No wonder most scientists are men.
Women are more deluded than men by spirits,astrology and religion.
I have supported equality for women all my life but now see that was a mistake.
I will continue to support equality of OPPORTUNITY for all.

katieO for POPE.

Shadow, the point of the argument is not that reason can't exist without a pre ordained purpose, but that we have more reason to trust our reason under a theistic framework than under a naturalist framework. I realise not all atheists are proponents of "naturalism", but 99% of self proclaimed atheists are. So the two go hand in hand. And often it's these naturalists who claim themselves as "free thinkers", "rationalists" and "brights". The irony is that rationality itself is far, far better explained by theism than by naturalism.

trav,

"I repeat, your impoverished and bizarre strawman carictature .. By using an absurd caricturised definition of religions such as Christianity as 'organisations' ... "

whatever "christianity" is, there have been and are christian organisations, and they have demonstrated no monopoly on wisdom or morality.

"On another note, it also saddens me to see Dawkins lumping Christianity in the same boat as Islam..."

whose christianity? there are no shortage of people who claim to speak for "christianity" who are quite loathsome. trav, who gives you the authority to pronounce on what true "christianity" is? it seems to me you're a more decent guy than, say, the revolting george pell. but who are you to say you're more "christian".

" we have more reason to trust our reason under a theistic framework than under a naturalist framework."

why? and which theistic framework? why that one? if you're going to reason for one, or any and all, form of theism, what is your justification for the frame work of that reasoning? why is this not simply "the god of the gaps", as mac pointed out about 50 posts ago?

"I realise not all atheists are proponents of "naturalism", but 99% of self proclaimed atheists are. "

prove it. for that matter, define what "naturalism" means in a non-absurd strawman manner.

new thread, same old crap.

Bushbasher

"new thread, same old crap."

Agreed.

Which religion, which version of that religion should preside overall?

To keep it simple, I'll use Christianity as an example.

Should it be the Unitarian version?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism

Or the Exclusive Brethren Brand? Or whatever variety Trav subscribes to?

Or, how about accepting pluralism and have a system in which no single creed dominates, such as secularism. Just a thought.

BB, [whatever "christianity" is, there have been and are christian organisations]

There are basketball organisations too. Does this mean basketball is an organisation?

[who gives you the authority to pronounce on what true "christianity" is? it seems to me you're a more decent guy than, say, the revolting george pell. but who are you to say you're more "christian".]

I never claim to speak for all Christians. I simply claim that Christianity is not Islam.

They're two seperate religions and need to be recogised as such. Rather than being tarred with the same brush. There have been something like 13,000 terrorist attacks taken out in the name of Islam over the past 7 or 8 years. There have been an insignificant and miniscule amount taken out in the name of Christianity. This is but one example of why the two need to be considered on their own merits when looking at the good and harm they do- as Dawkins does.

[why? and which theistic framework? why that one?]

Any theistic framework.

If you're going to reason for one, or any and all, form of theism, what is your justification for the frame work of that reasoning?]

My justification is that regardless of which theism you use, the existence of a God makes complete sense of rationality. Whereas I find the arguments of Alvin Plantinga, CS Lewis, Victor Reppert and others to be quite convincing in that the same rationality simply doesn't sit well with naturalism at all.

[why is this not simply "the god of the gaps", as mac pointed out about 50 posts ago?]

Please show how this could be god of the gaps...

["I realise not all atheists are proponents of "naturalism", but 99% of self proclaimed atheists are. "

prove it.]

I don't have proof, I have anecdotal evidence. I rarely see people who proclaim atheism talking about the wonders of the spiritual world. Do you?