There was movement at the Station..for the word had passed around...
that Prof McGrath had come from Oxford to speak.

Last night, at WAverly Anglican Church.. 2 x Phd.. molecular biology and theology.. Prof McGrath spoke very eloquently on the issue of 'science and religion'....

His primary target was of course.. Richard Dawkins material. "The God delusion", and he had a good supply of 'The Dawkins delusion' available.

The place was PACKED OUT.. overflowing.. wow..

His main approach was that science cannot prove OR disprove God... and he mentioned that there is a high powered Atheist society which put out a statement that Dawkins makes them ashamed to be called Atheists.
Looking at his extremely subjective and opinionated popularism...one can see why.

THEN...we had 'QUESTION TIME'....ohhhh no... you guessed it... all the predatorial atheists, gays, even a Jewish Rabbi leaped out of the undergrowth..and POUNCED.. aargh.. it was question time but it ended up being 'speakers corner' with the questions being 90% SPEECHES and 10% questions... still.. Alistair dealt graciously and competently with 15 layered 'speech/questions' and also the genuine ethical questions.

At the end.. 'religion' was well in tact.. Mr Dawkins appropriately sidelined :) and we all went home in the rain.

Hold the Phone [three exclamation remarks, removed by the style police]

>>His main approach was that science cannot prove OR disprove God<<

He came all the way from Oxford to tell you that?

He could have saved a ton of greenhouse gas by emailing the information.

Nobody in their right mind would assert that science can disprove the existence of anything, let alone a concept as nebulous and un-pin-downable as a God. All that science can do is deal in columns headed "Most Likely" and "Very Unlikely", especially when it comes to major issues such as the nature of the cosmos, how the universe was formed, or whether or not there exists such stuff as dark matter or Phlogiston.

No, I suspect that the reason he came was simply to promote his book, which is why he would have spent so much time bagging Dawkins. To quote from a review (by a Dale Appleby, who couldn't even spell the book title correctly) "[McGrath] makes out a polite but clear cut case against the straw-man method that Dawkins uses, and refutes the central claim of Dawkins that faith is blind and based on a 'total absence of supporting evidence'"

By the way, the book is called "Dawkins' God". But I expect he would have mentioned that. Am I right?

I know that you find it difficult to grasp, Boaz, but atheism is not a religion. What that means is that we do not share any single set of beliefs. While each separate religious organization or group tends to share - amongst itself, of course - a unified, coded set of beliefs, or faith, atheists do not.

Your own personal faith is, we know, different again, since it is the "right" one, where all these others - including vast numbers who nominate themselves as sharing "Christian" beliefs - are wrong.

So it might come as a surprise to both you and the esteemed professor, that heaping scorn on the opinions of one particular atheist, has absolutely no impact on the one standing next to him.

Or me, either.

Incidentally, Boaz, on a completely different topic:

>>There was movement at the Station..for the word had passed around...
that Prof McGrath had come from Oxford to speak.<<

Doesn't scan.

In fact, not only does it not scan, but it does not do so, in a most offensive manner. Truly ugly.

If the style police can scold me for using three consecutive exclamation marks, surely they can come down even more heavily on such an egregious offence against the nature of poetry?

"At the end.. 'religion' was well in tact.. Mr Dawkins appropriately sidelined"

And all the believers went home with a nice warm feeling. But you know as well as I that the prof proved nothing and religion is still only intact for those with sufficient faith to believe such.

And that's the way it will always be.

"His main approach was that science cannot prove OR disprove God..."

Oh duh Boazy. We've been telling you just that for yonks. That's the nature of science - you can't prove that anything doesn't exist, but you can prove that something does if you have sufficient evidence.

And yes, your mangling of a great opening line was an affront to poetic sensibility :)

Yeah, well those predatory atheists and Jews will just jump out of the undergrowth at the slightest provocation. I guess a lot of undergrowth grows in churches these days. You could have at least gotten some details correct, if only out of respect for the man, he did a PhD in molecular biophysics (not molecular biology, which is quite different) and you spelled his name incorrectly.

It's funny though, I am having trouble digging out the title of his old thesis from Oxford (the molecular biophysics one), does anyone have a link? As far as I can tell that's about the only real science that he has written about, everything else is theology (and Dawkins of course). He seems to have written an awful lot about Dawkins, I guess he owes the man a debt of gratitude, we would never had heard of ALISTER McGrath otherwise.

Hi guys :)

welllll.. I see none of you have lost your 'edge' at making ad hominems....

Thank you all for the poetic and grammatical corrections and exhortations.. as they say 'Engineers are better by design/Technicians( me) are just well adjusted'... yes.. shock horror.. I do make the odd gaff in my writing.
duh :)

I'm encouraged that "English" Pericles at least knows the Aussie "The man from snowy river" :) this is a major breakthrough.

No Pericles... McGrath was not primarily there to promote his book per se,..but I totally accept that he was there to promote an apologetic for some scandalous riducule (illegal in Victoria by the way) of Dawkins suggesting that those who hold religious beliefs are 'sick'...

When such flagrant attacks are made by intelligent and influential men on the pretty ordinary Christian population..someone..has to speak about it.. just as Augustine.. Athanasius and even Paul in the beginning (1Cor 15)did.

While you blokes "claim" to know that science cannot disprove God... (well at least we are on the same page there) we are left with the abundance of evidence to the contrary.. that God HAS revealed Himself to mankind.

No Pericles.. I am not promoting 'my' version of Christian truth.. I am promoting Christian truth. If you want to find a reference point for 'my' views.. the Nicene Creed would be a good place to begin. Hardly 'my' view alone.

I do take exception to some aspects of the earlier Westminster confession, particularly in regard to the 'Sabbath'.. where it stated (in the text I read) that the civil magistrate could be called on the enforce it.. I've not found this in later versions.

Still its a very interesting piece of our history and shows the struggles that characterize our history of Church and State.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westminster_Confession_of_Faith

Bugsy . of COURSE he was preaching to the Choir... and people rejoiced in the affirmation of what they already believed, but this should not cloud the 'believability' from an evidentiary viewpoint, the Gospel.

David Bozzie
There was movement in the station?
Listen Bozie you need a punch on the nose for that.
Thats insulting. We all know who the real man was who wrote that.
Movement indeed.
Now you have gone and made you old pale buddies upset also.
I would like to see some movement alright Boaz.
What about asking your hero Steve Feilding of Family first to move himself to at least reply to a fellow Minister and a RSPCA CEO and our President who travelled great distances to give our time explaining its "every Christians" and "every persons" reasponsibilty to protect Gods creatures.
There will be movement at the Station all right if I ever go back there.
He wont be the Colt that got away! either. Not like the poor ones at the Rodeos "he approved of" for people entertainment]
But there might be a bit of regret.
Please take that comment off Bozie or I wont sleep.
How can you by the way look up to such a poor excuse of a human being - along with his advisor as that?"
Have you met the guy? We have.
Please dont put our Banjo in the same boat as that wishy washy grant happy fund raising lot thanks very much.

I found God to be pin-downable Pericles last Friday night. I went to a small Christian revival meeting in a small hall in Rockdale, Sydney and had some very annointed Christian folk lay hands on me and wow, down came the power of The Holy Spirit. What a night of God confirming His Existance. People on the floor, people getting set free, joy and happiness all over the hall. I havent needed confirmation of Gods Existance for over 24 years. He walks with me every second of the day.

Thanks Gibo. A statement indicating the strength of your faith must make you feel great. Can you tell me why anyone else would be interested?

What I find curious is that some believers seem to think that all they need do is make a statement, just as you have, and all doubt over the existence of god should be removed. But it does nothing of the sort. So you believe! So what? Your faith is a crutch to you and you're happy with that. That's ok, it's a free country. But if you want to add to the debate, statements as you have mad contribute nothing.

You missed it Ditch.
It was a personal testimony of what had occured at that small christian revival meeting. The touching of the people by God that night was as real as it is all over the world when He touches people. They get healed and they get changed. Many get born again (John 3:3) and spend the rest of their lives with Jesus as Lord and Saviour.
Its not a fantasy like the "Dawkings scribblings". God is really there and we give testimony about it because it is real. The humanists sure miss out on life and life abundantly. The years ahead will change that of course as things begin to fall apart right before our eyes. Lets be ready to take on what the Bible says is the truth as being the truth. If we are equipped for that, the shock will be less. What God says in the Bible is the way it has always been on planet earth. No evolution, no man ponderings, no ohming the belly button, no made up rubbish by witchdoctors... just the Bibles truth.

Dear Ditch...

you have a good point there.. why SHOULD others be interested?
Well..I'm always interested in the Christian experience of brothers like Gibo.. we might not share all the same views on some things, but that does not negate the fundamental truth of God..in Christ.

Can I suggest that behind Gibo's experience of the Holy Spirit.. however you yourself might interpret it.. there is the Gospel of Salvation.

What Gibo described is something I have also.. a bit similiar..but I've mentioned this in the past and don't like to always revisit..but I was healed.. dramatically. But the 'signs' are not meant to do anything other than they were intended during Jesus time, and during the period of the Apostles.. and that is..

"that you might believe, that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God, and that believing, you might have life in His name" John 20:31

So.. that is what is behind our references to Christ or His Spirit at work in lives today.

I encourage you to turn your own life around.. to return to the rich tapestry of our cultural background and history.. which is founded on the Gospel.. the creeds.. the struggles.. yep.. all of that.. by returning to.. or coming to.. Christ..in faith.. for forgiveness and renewal.
Saying thus does not set either myself or Gibo or any other Christian up on any pedastal.. or holier than thou-ism.. it is simply repentant sinners.. calling to sinners..to be found by the Good Shepherd

And the earth is 6000 years old?

Interesting question Ditch.. I'm not sure what McGrath believes but I think he is more an 'old' earth bod...

For me.. I read Gen 1 and honestly.. I don't have any major problem with the scientific view.. (as in ..'Big Bang').... there is room for a bit of interpretation there. I'm also comfortable with a young earth.. But consider this.. Gen 1 is not a scientific document or treatize.. it declares that God created... all.

When comparing Gen account with all other pagan ones.. it stands out as head and shoulders above them in believability.. though I can appreciate a 'talking snake' might make some people wonder.

Science... can neither prove nor disprove :) Intelligent design is just one of a number of theories.. and just as valid unless one's presuppositions would exclude it 'dogmatically' :)

David
We are not surprised yet again you ignored the truth about the Great Family First The Great so called Christians and their lack of humanity and concern.
We are not surprised that just like all the other so called good christians you fail again and again and again and again to address this topic.

We are not surprised because that is what all these so called good Church people do again and again and again and again.

While the lord cries out to help his creatures - again and again and again.
It kind of makes you wonder doesnt it- Who is really doing the Lords work.
We are not surprised that these strange lot patting themselves on the back think its more important to debate a womens personal business on to have or not have children.

We are not surprsided either that something that is less than a half a grain of rice amnd not born takes priority of Gods Creatures.

We are not surprised this crazy lot cant see there are too many people on this earth now.

Do you know why we are not surprsided David.
Because all or most of these so called good Christians and Church leaders are they same.
They ALL look the other way.
Its the shame and ignorance and cruelty you all share.
Pluss self arrogance.
Let us know when PROFESOR comes to town again. There will be movement all right.

I sympathise "People Against Live Exports..." re: Family First etc.
Somewhere in the not too distant past certain christians decided that politics was a good way to go; and it is if The Lord is in the move, but I believe it also tends to aid putting aside the Gospel for a lesser thing. The big commission for christians is to "Go into all of the world and preach to every living thing" Mark 16:15. Whether christians in politics is The Lords Will I couldnt say unless I was privey to the first vision given to the christian politician-to-be, if one was given. There was a group back in the 1980's in Toowoomba QLD called the Logos Foundation that went over into politics for a while then faded out as its leader fell into pride and immorality, then died. I spoke against the man in the local press quite a bit but he was convinced he was on the right track doing God's Will in the political arena. I prefer a simpler path of preaching the Word and as you say caring for the little ones too. We feed cockatoos, parrots and possums. It gives us much pleasure

Boaz said, "When comparing Gen account with all other pagan ones.. it stands out as head and shoulders above them in believability.. though I can appreciate a 'talking snake' might make some people wonder."

Oh come now David. How can the Genesis story stand head and shoulders above all? That type of sweeping unsupported statement typifies many that true believers make. It is made out of pure faith, nothing more.

The challenge for fundamentalist hristians such as yourself, is to maintain your faith but at the same time engage in a rational debate on those matters that challenge your belief structure. By doing so you are not betraying your religion. You are merely using your brains. The ones your god gave you. Unless you think he meant for you not to use them?

But to make a statement as the one I've quoted and just leave it at that, no evidence, no reasoning, that's not what I would call debate, just preaching.

Dear Ditch
there is hardly space here to present the epic of Gilgamish.. its jussst too long.
You can do some sussing out yourself.. "pagan creation accounts" or somethng like that...

There are some areas where we cannot do anything but 'make the statement'..

I've looked at this b4..
http://home.att.net/~kmpope/CreationMyths.html
might help.

Similarities between pagan myths and Genesis are explained by realizing that Genesis is the original..and it became diluted or embellished in pagan terms as time went by :)

I'll take a look when I get back from a few days away. Perhaps you could take a look at The Origin of Species while I'm gone.

Yet another throwaway line, without a skerrick of justification.

>>Intelligent design is just one of a number of theories.. and just as valid unless one's presuppositions would exclude it 'dogmatically'<<

Of course, every theory is "valid", but only in the sense that it is a free country, and you are able to express your opinion on anything from global warming to time travel.

The difference is that any theory on global warming is usually accompanied by some form of evidence. It may be credible, it may be incredible, it may be the result of years of dedicated research or it may be invented on the spot in order to attract attention. Time travel, on the other hand, cannot be proven to exist one way or another - there is literally no evidence; it can only exist theoretically.

The theories of evolution and intelligent design differ in one key respect. Evolutionary theory is accompanied by documented facts, while intelligent design theory is accompanied by nothing more than conjecture.

And while it is quite possible that the present theories of evolution might change, or be adjusted, or be scrapped entirely in the face of new evidence, the same cannot be said about intelligent design. Being only a "fill-in" theory, that relies on the audience agreeing to leaps of logic of a very similar magnitude to leaps of faith, nothing can be added to it, or subtracted from it. It can only ever exist in theory.

Yes, it is a theory. But it doesn't require any form of "dogmatic presuppositions" to exclude it from rational discourse on the topic.

Boazy: "Science... can neither prove nor disprove"

Poor old Boazy demonstrates yet again that he doesn't understand science. Whether this is due to a poor education or an intellectual deficit is unclear, but he seems quite incapable of comprehending that the scientific paradigm differs fundamentally from the magical thought that characterises his worldview.

Science certainly can "prove" its theories and hypotheses, subject to confidence intervals and probability. However, the hypothetico-deductive model it employs cannot "disprove" anything, and makes no claim to.

The magical thinking that characterises religion, however, can "prove" or "disprove" anything its credulous adherents choose to believe. This is, of course, why religious types are so antagonistic towards those who hold different beliefs to themselves - when reality is defined in magical terms there is no objectivity, so there is no ultimate arbiter beyond faith.

Science, on the other hand, can either prove that phenomena exist, or it cannot. The paradigm itself cannot "disprove" anything.

CJ said:

"subject to confidence intervals and probability"

exxxxxactly :) Thank you for making my point.

and thats EXACTLY how it is regarding the reports of and evidence for..the resurrection of Christ.

Game..Set... nah.I won't say it.. you will be back for another punishing game soon :)

So, Boazy, what's the probability that Christ didn't rise from the dead?

0.01? 0.05? 0.5? 1?

Gibo
Sorry I didnt see your post earlier. Yes the old saying the proof of the pudding etc. Then to add insult to injury the same chistains use the argument that live exports and Animal cruelty is political and outside their area. All this mind you while they stand for political elections and remain quite in regards to cruelty to Gods creatures to get their hands on the Government grants handed out to Church leaders etc and Christian schools to keep their darling little mouths shut.
Mind you the real christain catholic Church leader that attended Steve Feildings office with us who has lived in ME telling Family first Steve Feilding how dreadfully these Australian Animals are treated IS doing the Lords work
It was a hot day and we travelled from QLD to Vic.
Charming people. Not an offer of a cuppa or coffee or even a sip of water.
Yep they are christians all right.
Give me the wonderful man of God who travelled so far for npo self gain to TRY to reach Family First.
Gods creatures is very much the churches responsibilty.
Shame on Steve Fielding and Family first.
Praise the lord we have a good Christain who cared enough to `try` to reach him.

CJ.... why not have a listen to this bloke.. he is rather well up in the world of apologetics and a few other fields.. not hard to listen to also.

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/montgomery.htm

I'm not sure how to quantify the evidence for the resurrection.. I'm not sufficiently legally trained. But if I was a gambler..I'd say "its a sure thing" :)