quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
By the way - no protestants and very few catholics take this literally - catholics are just stronger on the incarnational symbolism.

ROFLMAO. You must be kidding or you have been badly misinformed.

By the way, for the catholics it is a DOGMA OF FAITH. Check the catholic catechism. It's online. It's good fun. You'll find that beliefs in ANGELS is also a dogma of fun.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
this would have violated all the Jewish purity codes and would be the last thing you would invent if you were trying to create a new religion in first century Palestine.

But christianity was never created in that place. Events described in the NT may have taken place there (though numerous geographical and other errors make that claim doubtful) but the religion really took off well away from Judea.

The NT really was written for an outside audience. People from Judea/Galillee would instantly have recognised the nonsense of the errors and likely have known that the claimed events hadn't happened.

Originally posted by MizD:

quote:

Just pointing out that it is only a difference of interpretation, culturally founded. Sort of our socially agreed manifestation of madness?

Is it just a difference of interpretation? If you give dopamine blocking drugs to someone who has a religious faith and a non-religious delusional system, the non-religious delusions may well recede, but the religious faith will still be there.

Posted by Milan K:

quote:

Just two points:

1. Harris' words are not humorous parody at all.
2. Would you care to give one example of a "cheap straw man tactic" used by Dawkins? Just one would do, thanks.

1.Well they are quite funny, and they are a selective caricature of Christian faith.....

2.Dawkins definition of Christian faith as "belief without evidence". His interviewing of the most rabidly extreme examples of fundamentalist Christianity on his channel 4 programmes.His selective quoting from the Old Testament in "The God delusion" to make God as nasty and vindictive as possible.
Don't get me wrong, I think Dawkins' books on evolution are brilliantly argued, it's just when he strays off piste into religion that he comes off the rails - hence The God Delusion got the critical slating it deserved.

Posted by Joliet:

quote:

But christianity was never created in that place. Events described in the NT may have taken place there (though numerous geographical and other errors make that claim doubtful) but the religion really took off well away from Judea.

The NT really was written for an outside audience. People from Judea/Galillee would
instantly have recognised the nonsense of the errors and likely have known that the claimed events hadn't happened.

If you consider Paul to be the founder of Christianity (though he himself was not a Christian)then he was preaching to the Jewish diaspora in the synagogues as well as "outsiders".Paul never renounced Judaism. He thought he was reforming it and universaliing it.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:

2.Dawkins definition of Christian faith as "belief without evidence".

It would only be a strawman would it turn out to be the case that Christians did not hold belief without evidence.

By "evidence", we don't mean hypothesis or conjecture by the way. I mean some piece of data that is mutually supported by other pieces of data which unambiguously implies that one particular hypothesis explains the data better than all other hypotheses.

So, with that in mind:

(1) As has been pointed out on numerous occasions, there's no contemporaneous non-Biblical evidence to corroborate the claims of the New Testament. Josephus is tainted. Er...

(2) There's no evidence for god. None. Zilch. Kaput. Neit. Irelande nul points. Zip. SFA. That's why "faith" is necessary.

quote:

His interviewing of the most rabidly extreme examples of fundamentalist Christianity on his channel 4 programmes.

It's nice to see you trying to pin a Strawman claim on Dawkins using a No True Scotsman argument

quote:

His selective quoting from the Old Testament in "The God delusion" to make God as nasty and vindictive as possible.

Aw, poor ickle god. The god of the OT is a nasty bit of work, and that's not something you can brush under the carpet - much as you'd love to. Any child can read it and see it for themselves. But hey, it's not as if you lot aren't guilty of selective quoting when you want to push yahweh as nicey-nicey. Fact is, the personalities are irreconcilable. Either the god of the OT is a psychopath, or you are wrong. Take your pick.

quote:

Don't get me wrong, I think Dawkins' books on evolution are brilliantly argued,

Damning by faint praise, eh?

quote:

it's just when he strays off piste into religion that he comes off the rails - hence The God Delusion got the critical slating it deserved.

The "critical slating" came from a bunch of Ivory Tower theologians who basically whined that Dawkins, having written a book for the layperson, hadn't reached the standards of their Ivory Tower cow-pooing. Their delusion isn't limited to god, it's that the nonsense that they espouse has any validity whatsoever. Dawkins, in fact, calls them on this, and he's right. Theology is about as valid a subject as astrology or witchcraft. And Plantinga / Craig et al are a bunch of time-wasting professional apologists. So in fact, the person most guilty of creating a strawman is... you

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
2.Dawkins definition of Christian faith as "belief without evidence".

You have some evidence for us? Cool, lemme see, lemme see.

quote:

His interviewing of the most rabidly extreme examples of fundamentalist Christianity on his channel 4 programmes.

In a programme meant to highlight that christians can be rabid and extreme? How dare he!

quote:

His selective quoting from the Old Testament in "The God delusion" to make God as nasty and vindictive as possible.

Christians cherry pick the good bits from the bible, then claim the bible is good. His explicit point was that the good bits they present are not the whole story, and that there must be something other than christianity which indicates to them which bits to pick.

It's amazing how many christians missed his point there.

Posted by Smoke and mirrors:

quote:

The "critical slating" came from a bunch of Ivory Tower theologians who basically whined that Dawkins, having written a book for the layperson, hadn't reached the standards of their Ivory Tower cow-pooing. Their delusion isn't limited to god, it's that the nonsense that they espouse has any validity whatsoever. Dawkins, in fact, calls them on this, and he's right. Theology is about as valid a subject as astrology or witchcraft. And Plantinga / Craig et al are a bunch of time-wasting professional apologists. So in fact, the person most guilty of creating a strawman is... you

Err: Michael Ruse, Physicist lawrence Krauss in Nature, Terry Eagleton (Marxist literary critic)in The London Review of books, Prospect magazine.......

Incidentally: The majority of humanity has held to some sort of religious belief since records began - doesn't this make it as valid an academic subject as history of philosophy, anthrapology, literary criticism.............the logical extension of Dawkins argument here is that only materialist science is a valid are of academic study.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Incidentally: The majority of humanity has held to some sort of religious belief since records began - doesn't this make it as valid an academic subject as history of philosophy, anthrapology, literary criticism.............the logical extension of Dawkins argument here is that only materialist science is a valid are of academic study.

Of course religion is a valid area of study for philosophy, anthropology, literary criticism etc. But theology has to demonstrate that god(s) exist before it can claim that studying god(s) is valid.

Faith as most Christian theologians use the term has little to do with evidence or lack of it.It is comparable to having "faith in a person".

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
2.Dawkins definition of Christian faith as "belief without evidence".

Faith is actually defined as belief without evidence. Anyway, even if that wasn't true then what evidence is there for your belief. You imply there is some so put up or admit you are posing an untrue argument yet again.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Faith as most Christian theologians use the term has little to do with evidence or lack of it.It is comparable to having "faith in a person".

So why is it a mischaracterisation to say faith is belief without evidence?

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
If you consider Paul to be the founder of Christianity (though he himself was not a Christian)then he was preaching to the Jewish diaspora in the synagogues as well as "outsiders".Paul never renounced Judaism. He thought he was reforming it and universaliing it.

So what, it does not matter who he spoke and preached too. The bible was concocted for a non-Jewish audience and the facts show that christianity actually took hold and expanded outside the holy lands. Furthermore, Paul is guilty of directly contradicting many of the sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus. So as a christian are you a follower of Jesus (the Christ) or a Paulian?

Anyway, given you like to wax on about psychological conditions and neurology then can you explain why we should believe much of what Paul says given he had his "revelation" following a severe head trauma.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Err: Michael Ruse, Physicist lawrence Krauss in Nature, Terry Eagleton (Marxist literary critic)in The London Review of books, Prospect magazine.......

Michael Ruse - a buddy of Dembski (an IDer) with whom he regularly debates so little wonder he doesn't like Dawkins.

Lawrence Krauss - I agree he criticises Dawkins for some of his arguments, Fine. However, it should be noted that he holds the same general POV as Dawkins - He does not believe in ID or creationism. He may disagree with some arguments of Dawkins but not the underlying message. Theism is bankrupt.

Terry Eagleton - You mention his Marxist leanings however you fail to mention he has also been involved with the Catholic group Slant and authored a number of theological articles - Not trying to bias your argument were you? Tut, tut. Anyway, he truly doesn't have a good grasp of Socialist ideology if he is involved with and supports theism. No surprise then that he also dislikes Dawkins.

The London Review of books, Prospect magazine - So what, unless we know the actual reviewers names one cannot see where their bias lies.

Er, Joliet.... why are you assuming that someone criticising Dawkins must have a bias?

Peer review is criticism, so someone criticising a book is not, actually, a bad thing, you know.

quote:

Originally posted by Joliet:
I am arguing from the standpoint of what the words simply and clearly say. I am merely interpreting them as they stand and in context. It is only you, in your apologetic, who is having to conjecture and add in hidden meaning by introducing extra bits (something actually proscribed in Rev) to make your argument.

This is the basic problem we two are going to continue to have, because I don't believe there is any such thing as what the words 'simply and clearly' say. I don't believe that 'interpretation' is merely what dishonest people do to befuddle others about what the Bible 'really' says; interpretation is what we all bring to the texts, inevitably as night follows day. Literalists interpret, fundamentalists, interpret, wishy-washy liberals interpret, and atheists arguing out of the Bible also interpret. There's no way out of it! Any claims to objectivity aren't going to get very far with me!

In your discussion about prayer, you 'cherry picked' certain passages and made deductions about prayer based on those passages alone. You were uninterested in the Lord's Prayer, and you seem to be saying that it is pretty much irrelevant to the discussion. We are going to have to disagree again, because for me, this prayer does actually say quite a lot about what prayer should be. It also seems apparent to me that what Jesus frequently said about God's expectations of us is also completely relevant to what prayer is.

You talked about the Old Testament. However, Christians believe that Jesus came with a new covenant, a new way of relating to God and each other. If we didn't believe that, we'd be Jews. Since I'm not a Jew, I'm not bound to pluck out anyone's eye. I'm a Christian, so logically enough, I try to adhere rather to what Christ says about dealing with conflict. If that means I'm 'cherry picking' then so be it.

As for what parents do, how do you suggest that they are prevented from contaminating their children with their world view? Even Milan K has followed in the path; he said the other day that his parents had no truck with religion, and he hasn't departed from that. For me, the 'seeds were sown' by a member of my family, but that person's faith and theology and mine, as well as the extent of our participation in church life, have been somewhat different. The majority of British people are, presumably, now influenced by the seeds sown in the family of indifference towards religion. Is this kind of familial influence acceptable to you?

quote:

Originally posted by LuisGarcia:
Er, Joliet.... why are you assuming that someone criticising Dawkins must have a bias?

Peer review is criticism, so someone criticising a book is not, actually, a bad thing, you know.

I quite accept your latter point. However, all of us have bias and in the case of some of the cited reviewers their theological bias probably does have bearing on their review. For instance, I never said Krauss was wrong in his critique merely pointed out that despite disagreeing he actually holds a very similar POV to Dawkins.

For bias though take Michael Ruse as example. He does not criticise his debating chum Dembski even though said makes highly dubious and unsubstantiated claims for ID. So his opinion and critique would seem to be coloured by his
bias. He certainly does not apply his criticism fairly across the board.

Oh, I agree. It was just the implication of your last sentence I take issue with (that unless we know who the reviewers were, we can't know what their biases were, so we can't see why they were wrong).

We all may have biases, but it's not having a bias that makes one right or wrong.

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Is it just a difference of interpretation? If you give dopamine blocking drugs to someone who has a religious faith and a non-religious delusional system, the non-religious delusions may well recede, but the religious faith will still be there.

well, i think you over estimate the efficacy of drug treatments, something like 25% of patients have no response to them, and anyway its a bit like saying the delusions recede but the patient still 'believes in' the CIA / MI5....

Originally posted by Joliet:

quote:

So what, it does not matter who he spoke and preached too. The bible was concocted for a non-Jewish audience and the facts show that christianity actually took hold and expanded outside the holy lands. Furthermore, Paul is guilty of directly contradicting many of the sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus. So as a christian are you a follower of Jesus (the Christ) or a Paulian?

Anyway, given you like to wax on about psychological conditions and neurology then can you explain why we should believe much of what Paul says given he had his "revelation" following a severe head trauma.

quote:

So what, it does not matter who he spoke and preached too. The bible was concocted for a non-Jewish audience and the facts show that christianity actually took hold and expanded outside the holy lands. Furthermore, Paul is guilty of directly contradicting many of the sayings and teachings attributed to Jesus. So as a christian are you a follower of Jesus (the Christ) or a Paulian?

Anyway, given you like to wax on about psychological conditions and neurology then can you explain why we should believe much of what Paul says given he had his "revelation" following a severe head trauma.

Where does it state that Paul suffered any kind of head injury Paul revised Jesus' teaching on divorce - anything else? Most of the bible (ie the Old Testament) was written by Jews for Jews.The Gospel of Matthew is written to appeal to a Jewish audience. Paul was a Jew who clearly wanted to convince other Jews that Jesus represented the fulfilment of their faith - of course it matters who he spoke to!The letter to the Hebrews is written...to Jews. Revelation is written in the style of Jewish apocalyptic literature. That doesn't leave much else does it?. You can go and visit first and second century tombs in Jerusalem with Christian symbols on the walls! Just because Christianity expanded outside the Holy Land does not mean that there was no Christian community inside the Holy land. It is not surprising if this community left little record of itself - the Romans sacked Jerusalem and the Jewish community was scattered. Any Christian community that survived in Jerusalem through to the middle ages would then have been slaughtered in the first crusade by..yes I know...."christians".

quote:

Originally posted by greenbelt:
Faith as most Christian theologians use the term has little to do with evidence or lack of it.It is comparable to having "faith in a person".

But it isn't, is it? Almost all the people I have faith in have earnt that trust. Part of the process of earning that trust, indeed the first necessary step - and this is a biggie - is that they exist. Unlike your imaginary friend. When he/she/it reveals his/her/itself to me as convincingly as my friends and family, then he/she/it will have completed the first step. Then he/she/it will need to convince me that it isn't a murderous psychopath who kills children with bears.

quote:

well, i think you over estimate the efficacy of drug treatments, something like 25% of patients have no response to them, and anyway its a bit like saying the delusions recede but the patient still 'believes in' the CIA / MI5....

Miz D: Are you implying that the "delusion" of religious belief will always fall into the 25% of delusional illness that is resistant to psychotropic`drugs? This would be a remarkable finding in its own right. The standard and much more plausible interpretation accepted by mainstream psychiatry is that "standard religious belief" is qualitatively and neuropharmacalogically distinct from delusional illness.