Interestingly, the list of “things that don’t need gods to explain” has been growing monotonically since we’ve been keeping records. The total has never gone down – nothing’s ever moved from the “explained without gods” to the “explained with gods” column.

Ray, and that’s a good thing. It simply means that we understand both God and nature better.

Arni Zachariassen,
Rather, that God has less and less of even an apparent explanatory role (in reality “God made it that way” has always been a worthless pseudo-explanation, since in the absence of a testable account of God’s decision-making procedures, it could be applied to absolutely any state of affairs).

Knockgoats,
I would call it a “trivial” explanation rather than a “pseudo” explanation. A trivial statement is still true, it just adds nothing that we didn’t already know (or presuppose) in the first place. A pseduo-explanation is not necessarily true (or necessary).
For Christians who believe that God is the Creator, the explanation of “God did it” is trivial, but not false. O.K., so what? How did He do it? On that second question is where Christians and Atheists can work together to solve the mysteries of the universe.
The ministry of Biologos is to encourage Christians to think critically about the data of natural history, and to let them know that being a Christian doesn’t mean rejecting the scientific consensus on origins. I would think that someone like you might be more supportive of that effort.

Good points. This is very much like something I wrote about in the URL above. Thanks!

Woops – captcha killed my URL! Should be there now.

Glover – Sadly, many people stop at the trivial explanation. Neil deGrasse Tyson has an article about that: http://www.haydenplanetarium.org/tyson/read/essays/nathist/perimeterofignorance
I have another example; J.S. Haldane, a prominent physician in the early twentieth century. He rejected the “mechanistic theory of heredity”:
On the mechanistic theory this [cell] nucleus must carry within its substance a mechanism which by reaction with the environment not only produces the millions of complex and delicately balanced mechanisms which constitute the adult organism, but provides for their orderly arrangement into tissues and organs, and for their orderly development in a certain perfectly specific manner.
The mind recoils from such a stupendous conception; but let us follow the argument further… This nuclear structure or mechanism must, according to the mechanistic theory, have been formed within a very short period by the union of two others – a male and a female one. How two such mechanisms could combine to form one is entirely unintelligible, and the observed details of the process tend only to make it, if possible, more unintelligible. When we trace each nuclear mechanism backwards we find ourselves obliged to admit that it has been formed by division from a pre-existing nuclear mechanism, and this from pre-existing nuclear mechanisms through millions of cell-generations. We are thus forced to the admission that the germ-plasm is not only a structure or mechanism of inconceivable complexity, but that this structure is capable of dividing itself to an absolutely indefinite extent and yet retaining its original structure…
There is no need to push the analysis further. The mechanistic theory of heredity is not merely unproven, it is impossible. It involves such absurdities that no intelligent person who has thoroughly realised its meaning and implications can continue to hold it.
Reading this passage, it’s striking how clearly he recognized the functional requirements that a mechanism for inheritance would have to meet. But he could imagine no physical arrangement that could satisfy those conditions, and concluded that therefore such a mechanism was impossible. Indeed, he insisted that a spiritual explanation was the only remaining option.
Sadly, I see a lot of that, today.

Oh, well, the italics disappeared after the first paragraph; the next two are Haldane as well.
Something to ponder – what if Haldane had decided to “push the analysis further”? Would we have discovered DNA decades earlier?

The ministry of Biologos is to encourage Christians to think critically about the data of natural history, and to let them know that being a Christian doesn’t mean rejecting the scientific consensus on origins. I would think that someone like you might be more supportive of that effort. – Gordon J. Glover
I think the scientific consensus on origins should be accepted on the evidence, whether or not it happens to be consistent with a ridiculous superstition. While I do not deny that Christians can be excellent scientists, I do see examples of even excellent scientists distorting science to fit their Christianity. I think that Simon Conway Morris does this in his argument that the evolution of human beings (or something very like them) was inevitable; and that BioLogos founder Francis Collins does it in his argument that natural evolutionary processes cannot fully account for human altruism. More fundamentally, science (or more broadly, rational enquiry) and religious faith are fundamentally at odds at an epistemological level. I think the creationists are, in fact, right in fearing that science, and evolutionary biology in particular, do undermine Christianity; it would be dishonest of me to pretend otherwise.
Furthermore, I consider religion, and specifically Christianity, to be deeply harmful and damaging in ways other than in its interaction with science: in its encouragement of irrational belief, without or in the teeth of the evidence; in its role in countless religious conflicts and persecutions throughout its history; in telling people that they are worthless, despicable sinners whose only hope is an entirely illusory saviour; in its authoritarianism, misogyny and homophobia; in its synergy with right-wing socio-economic doctrines. The faster it declines, the better I will be pleased.

Ray,
I’ve used that very agument (from Tyson) myself in demonstrating how design never adds anything non-trivial to a scientific investigation, but rather only serves as a premature stopping point.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLJGEEynl4w
However, I wasn’t aware of the other example. I’ll have to remember that one! Thanks.
GJG

KG: “I think the scientific consensus on origins should be accepted on the evidence, whether or not it happens to be consistent with a ridiculous superstition.” — Agreed. It is what it is regardless of how compatible it may or may not be with our personal philosophies.
“While I do not deny that Christians can be excellent scientists, I do see examples of even excellent scientists distorting science to fit their Christianity.” — I agree again, but would you be equally critical of an atheist who does the same with respect to his/her views that life has no meaning or purpose (something clearly outside the bounds of empericism)?
“I think that Simon Conway Morris does this in his argument that the evolution of human beings (or something very like them) was inevitable…” — This isn’t a distinctively “Christian” argument. James Garner and others make the same claim, and argue that ergo: similar beings should exist elsewhere. Would you be critical of non-Christians who make similar arguements?
“…and that BioLogos founder Francis Collins does it in his argument that natural evolutionary processes cannot fully account for human altruism.” — I might have a friendly disagreement with Dr. Collins on that point, but this is no different than Dawkins viewing the cosmos through his “pitililess indifference” lens. Does that bother you as well?
“More fundamentally, science (or more broadly, rational enquiry) and religious faith are fundamentally at odds at an epistemological level.” — They are different ways of knowing, but not necessarily at odds. I’m curious to know what you mean by that. Knowledge obtained from one is not necessarily at odds with knowledge obtained from the other.
After your litany of complaints against Christianity (many of which are legitimate), you said, “The faster it [Christianity] declines, the better I will be pleased.” — O.k. Fair enough. Then I suggest you start with the really fundamentalist stuff. I’m not sure which of their websites have blogs, but I’m sure you can find some. Then, after you are completely victorious in stomping out ignorance and superstition over there, you can come back here and take on the scientifically literate Christians who are probably not nearly as irrational, superstitious, right-wing, homophobic, authoritarian, or misogynistic as the fundies.
If those things you listed are indeed what really upsets you, it seems to me that taking them on first would be the most “rational” course of action. If it’s something else (which I suspect it is), then we’ll still be here.

Thanks, Ray, for the Tyson article link. The Haldane example is a good one also. The trick for us scientist-believers is to keep pressing on for mechanisms while never failing to stop and gawk at the wonder and strange beauty of the created order. When we direct those feelings of wonder at the Father, it turns into worship and He gets the glory. But then we’ve got to get back to work…

would you be equally critical of an atheist who does the same with respect to his/her views that life has no meaning or purpose (something clearly outside the bounds of empericism)? – Gordon J. Glover
I have not heard any atheist say that. I have heard them say it has no meaning or purpose external to those we choose for ourselves. If this distorted their science I hope I would be as critical, but I’m not in the best position to judge. Do you have an actual example of an atheist distorting their science to accord with this view?
This isn’t a distinctively “Christian” argument. James Garner and others make the same claim, and argue that ergo: similar beings should exist elsewhere. Would you be critical of non-Christians who make similar arguements?
That would depend on whether I considered that non-scientific presuppositions had led them to distort the state of the scientific evidence. I haven’t heard of Garner, by the way, and Google doesn’t find anyone other than the actor – can you give a reference or link?
but this is no different than Dawkins viewing the cosmos through his “pitililess indifference” lens. Does that bother you as well?
I think it’s a mistake to characterise the universe as “pitilessly indifferent” – it is no more that, than it is warm and caring, and you wouldn’t call a rock “pitilessly indifferent” – but again, how has this distorted Dawkins’ science?
They are different ways of knowing
No, religious faith is not a way of knowing at all: it is sheer wishful thinking and self-deception. If it were a “way of knowing” there would not be an estimated 30,000 Christian sects – to say nothing of all the other religions, past and present.
Then, after you are completely victorious in stomping out ignorance and superstition over there, you can come back here and take on the scientifically literate Christians who are probably not nearly as irrational, superstitious, right-wing, homophobic, authoritarian, or misogynistic as the fundies.
IOW, “go away and don’t come back”! I’ve spent plenty of time arguing with fundies (and indeed, there are several around here); having some more intelligent and educated opponents makes a pleasant change. In any case, I agree with Dawkins that religious “moderates” give cover to the extremists: the very idea that “faith” is intellectually or morally respectable, let alone admirable, is the root of the problem.

Gordon J. Glover,
A note on the likelihood of extra-terrestrial humanoids. I am in fact very critical of the frequent (non-religious) assumption that there are almost certainly many advanced extra-terrestrial civilisations (humanoid or not), which I consider a product of wishful thinking. I consider Fermi’s Paradox (“Where is everybody?”) to be quite strong evidence that there are not.

The “god of the gaps” idea is great for explaining what’s wrong with arguing against science. The more we know about the universe, the greater God seems to me. Each time we turn out to have been wrong about something in cosmology, physics, chemistry, biology, the truth turns out to be much more awesome than what we thought. For instance, “Discovering Ardi” on Discovery Channel recently. The details are so marvelous!

KG: My response to your last comment disappeared. Did you see it while it was up?
GJG

Gordon, I didn’t see it either, hope you can repost it, I am enjoying your discussion with knockgoats!
I thank you both, it is really thought provoking!

Here it is again:
KG: “Do you have an actual example of an atheist distorting their science to accord with this view?” — No. But plenty of examples of atheists using science to make metaphysical declarations.
“I haven’t heard of Garner, by the way, and Google doesn’t find anyone other than the actor – can you give a reference or link?” — I goofed up the spelling. It’s James Gardner (with a “d”). Google “The Intelligent Universe” (not Fred Hoyle’s book).
“If [religious faith] were a “way of knowing” there would not be an estimated 30,000 Christian sects – to say nothing of all the other religions, past and present. — I don’t think you can draw that conclusion. How many versions of cosmology have we had in the last 4000 years – all suposedly based on human observation? Does this invalidate the “astronomical” way of knowing (via looking at the heavens)?
“…having some more intelligent and educated opponents makes a pleasant change…” — Touche!
“…the very idea that “faith” is intellectually or morally respectable, let alone admirable, is the root of the problem.” — Hmmm, then I have some questions for you:
1.) Do you make all of your descisions only after having complete command of all relavent facts?
2.) If yes, then does this level of certainty slow you down at all?
3.) If no, then are you only opposed to faith when exercised in the practice of religion?
GJG

Apologia time!
From dear Knockgoats:
“Furthermore, I consider religion, and specifically Christianity, to be deeply harmful and damaging in ways other than in its interaction with science:”
Your opinion is noted for what it is.
As can be seen, Christians and Christianity have evolved nicely to fit the enquiring scientific mind. So many universities founded by Christians. So many hospitals and research settings. As well as, to be comepletely harmless to those that are adversaries to Christians and Christianity. What a relief and an exception in todays world of rabid ideologues of secularism.
“. . . in its encouragement of irrational belief, without or in the teeth of the evidence;”
As can be observed, Christians and Christianity are leading the way in encouraging rational and morally sound belief in the sciences and medical fields, education environments and of course the tenets of what Christ Jesus was quoted as saying and actually implementing those teachings.
“. . . in its role in countless religious conflicts and persecutions throughout its history;”
To the contrary, the numbers of conflicts caused by Christians and Christianity can be counted and are strikingly limited in numbers; astoundingly less in occurrence than the recent past or modern Muslim, communist, socialist or atheistic political environments. Where the numbers of dead are in the multiple tens of millions.
“. . . in telling people that they are worthless, despicable sinners whose only hope is an entirely illusory saviour;”
That is simply bogus on its face. Canard. A false statement countered by the very words of the Gospel and actions of Christian towards other human beings since its inception. Billions and billions of other human beings who are almost all NOT Christians, have been helped to survive and thrive by Christians.
“. . . in its authoritarianism . . .”
Again a statement disproven by the very fact of thousands of separate denominations that co-exist and claim Christian foundation. And, there are no exclusively “Christian nations” anywhere on earth.
“Misogyny . . .”
The evidence of the Christian Church disproves this accusation as well.
”. . . and homophobia;”
Canard. Groundless charge. Not celebrating or approving of same-gender sex acts is not an irrational fear. The Christian family structure is man and woman, married exclusively to each other and raising respectful children. The evidence shows the irrationality exists in those supporting and engaging in homosexual encounters.
“ . . . in its synergy with right-wing socio-economic doctrines.”
This is easily disproven by the worldwide Christian community. It also shows the rigidity, authoritarianism and totalitariansim (closemindedness) actually inherent in atheistic persons and not in the widely differing Christian expressions observed worldwide and certainly in the U.S from its creation until this very day.
“The faster it declines, the better I will be pleased.”
This though, does show the content of character of the common, base atheist. The true colors as it were. Hostility through and through.

Gordon J. Glover,
KG: “Do you have an actual example of an atheist distorting their science to accord with this view?” — No. But plenty of examples of atheists using science to make metaphysical declarations.
Irrelevant, since the topic was the distortion of science by non-scientific presuppositions. Certainly this is not limited to religious presuppositions – political ones also feature.
“I haven’t heard of Garner, by the way, and Google doesn’t find anyone other than the actor – can you give a reference or link?” — I goofed up the spelling. It’s James Gardner (with a “d”). Google “The Intelligent Universe” (not Fred Hoyle’s book).
I’ll take a look.
“If [religious faith] were a “way of knowing” there would not be an estimated 30,000 Christian sects – to say nothing of all the other religions, past and present. — I don’t think you can draw that conclusion. How many versions of cosmology have we had in the last 4000 years – all suposedly based on human observation? Does this invalidate the “astronomical” way of knowing (via looking at the heavens)?,
No. In science, theories are altered or abandoned according to the evidence: there are systematic procedures for identifying and correcting error. There is absolutely nothing comparable in religion.
1.) Do you make all of your decisions only after having complete command of all relavent facts?
No, but I try to adjust the confidence of my belief in propositions, and my willingness to act on them, according to the weight of evidence and argument for and against – as well as the likely consequences (for myself and others) of acting on them if wrong, or failing to do so if right. Since doctrinally orthodox Christianity cannot possibly be true (the doctrine of the hypostatic union is necessarily false), it being right is not a possibility I have to consider. As for the existence of a god or gods in general, it could be true, but we have no evidence for it, and no way of knowing what it/they would want if it/they does/do exist.
3.) If no, then are you only opposed to faith when exercised in the practice of religion?
No. For example, I spend a great deal of time and energy arguing with “libertarians”, who have a quasi-religious unreasoning faith in “the Market”.

Mere_Christian,
As well as, to be comepletely harmless to those that are adversaries to Christians and Christianity.
The relatives of those massacred by Christians in Lebanon and Nigeria, or by the Lord’s Resistance Army in Uganda, and those dead because God told George W. Bush to invade Iraq might disagree. Then of course there are the wicked lies told by the Catholic Church about condoms causing AIDS, and all the women dead in childbirth or unable to care properly for too-numerous children because of its opposition to contraception, the pretence that “abstinence-based” sex education works, the murders of doctors for performing abortions, the sabotage of education by lying creationists. If we go back a little we find Christians prominent in establishing murderous right-wing dictatorships in Latin America, and a little further back again, in Europe.
As can be observed, Christians and Christianity are leading the way in encouraging rational and morally sound belief in the sciences and medical fields, education environments and of course the tenets of what Christ Jesus was quoted as saying and actually implementing those teachings.
See above for the lies told by Christians in these areas. Moreover, the more eminent the scientist, the mo0re likely they are to be atheist or agnostic – as noted in a study in Nature that I quoted in an earlier post.
“. . . in its role in countless religious conflicts and persecutions throughout its history;”
To the contrary, the numbers of conflicts caused by Christians and Christianity can be counted and are strikingly limited in numbers; astoundingly less in occurrence than the recent past or modern Muslim, communist, socialist or atheistic political environments. Where the numbers of dead are in the multiple tens of millions.
Wow. Where do I start? From the instant they had state power, Christians started torturing and murdering each other, and everyone else, over questions of beliefs. The Arians, the Donatists, the Nestorians, the Monophysites and others were all violently suppressed or driven out in establishing doctrinally orthodox Christianity. In perhaps the greatest act of vandalism in history, Christians destroyed the library at Alexandria, incidentally murdering the finest female scholar of ancient times, Hypatia, by the charming method of scraping the flesh from her bones with sharpened oyster shells. Moving into the Middle Ages we have the extermination of the Bogomils, the Cathars and the Hussites, the Crusades (most of which involved massacring Jews as part of Christianity’s long record of antisemitism, and Muslims – often along with local Christians – whenever a town fell to the Crusaders). Then we have the Wars of Religion during the Reformation and Counter-reformation – during the 30-years war, mainly a religious conflict, around 1/3 of the population of Germany died from violence or starvation. Christianity was used to justify the depredations of European imperialism, including the enslavement of millions of Native Americans and Africans, and the destruction of hundreds of local cultures with disastrous effects on the people concerned. In most European countries, fascism was closely allied with the Churches. Hitler was a baptized Christian who never repudiated the faith, and although certainly not orthodox, was apparently a convinced theist who considered he was doing God’s work. Whatever his personal beliefs, most of those who carried out his orders, including the Holocaust, were doctrinally orthodox Christians. His troops wore a belt buckle inscribed “Gott Mit Uns” – “God with us”. For more recent atrocities, see above.
“. . . in telling people that they are worthless, despicable sinners whose only hope is an entirely illusory saviour;”
That is simply bogus on its face. Canard.
We have clear examples on this very blog.
“. . . in its authoritarianism . . .”
Again a statement disproven by the very fact of thousands of separate denominations that co-exist and claim Christian foundation. And, there are no exclusively “Christian nations” anywhere on earth.
False: the Holy See. As for authoritarianism, who, anywhere, apart from the Pope, actually claims infallibility. As long as they had the power to do so, Christians almost everywhere established theocracies, in which “heretics”, members of other religions, and athe4ists, risked death.
“Misogyny . . .”
The evidence of the Christian Church disproves this accusation as well.
Throughout the history of Christianity, it has treated women as inferior to men. Moreover, this is justified by both the OT and the NT.
Genesis 3:16 Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
1 Corinthians 11:9 Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
5:24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
1 Timothy 2:11 Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. 2:12 But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
”. . . and homophobia;”
Canard. Groundless charge. Not celebrating or approving of same-gender sex acts is not an irrational fear. The Christian family structure is man and woman, married exclusively to each other and raising respectful children. The evidence shows the irrationality exists in those supporting and engaging in homosexual encounters.
Thank you for so conclusively proving my point, bigot.
“ . . . in its synergy with right-wing socio-economic doctrines.”
See above with respect to fascism and the recent right-wing military dictatorships in Latin America. See also the religious right in the USA, and the justification of apartheid in South Africa. Of coursed it is not true that all Christians hold these doctrines, nor did I claim this.
This though, does show the content of character of the common, base atheist. The true colors as it were. Hostility through and through.
Pot, let me introduce you to kettle. You have been foaming at the mouth with rage and hatred, not just at me, but at your fellow Christians, ever since I began commenting here.

KG: “No, but I try to adjust the confidence of my belief in propositions, and my willingness to act on them, according to the weight of evidence and argument for and against – as well as the likely consequences (for myself and others) of acting on them if wrong, or failing to do so if right.” — Fine, then what’s the problem with religion if it provides a context, or working model, to guide such rational/moral exercises? Certainly you can’t go wrong with “do unto others…” or “love your neighbor…”? In fact, all of the past injustices done in the name of Christ would never had occurred had such moral reasoning been implimented. It seems to me that your complaint is with inflexible religious dogma, not religious faith or moral reasoning per se.
“Since doctrinally orthodox Christianity cannot possibly be true (the doctrine of the hypostatic union is necessarily false)…” — So is the wave-particle duality of light. But being necessarily false (according to the dogmatic rules of logic) doesn’t automatically make a human construct useless. In our finite knowledge as humans, we often construct paradoxical models to make sense of things that evade our grasp of reason. Just look at the inherent contradictions with the various quantum interpretations. Why, in your mind, is this only a problem for religion?
“…it being right is not a possibility I have to consider.” — Again, you are being dogmatic. The laws of logic are not written in a magic book somwewhere. They are merely rules we invent to pattern our thoughts according to the order and uniformity we find in nature, and they provide a common basis for human reasoning, like a language does for communication. But they are only based on the patterns we find in the macroscopic world to help us navigate that familiar terrain. If we were subatomic, we might have a law of logic that allowed something to be “A” and “not A” simoultaneously. We would need an entirely different set of rules to navigate the quantum world. We think too highly of ourselves if we assume that reality is limited to only that which we can wrap our finite minds around based on our limited experience with the cosmos. Therefore, being “logically consistent” is not a prerequisite for truth or even utility.
For instance: either Relativity, Quantum mechanics or BOTH are necessarily false. All physicists know this. But something necessrily wrong but useful is better than nothing – which is useless. So we would be fools to overlook their utility, as currently understood, and reject them both outright.
The world would grind to a halt were not for our ability to act on incomplete information and construct tentative models based on what we do know, in order to fill in gaps of what we don’t know. In fact, the power of any model (scientific or otherwise) is its ability to extend our epistemologial horizon beyond what we can confirm directly and allow us to operate in uncharted territory with a degree of confidence. So I think you are being unfair in your criticism of religious faith. If it’s not for you, just admit it? But don’t hide behind these claims that you stand on superior ground because you refuse to accept that which is not necessarily true or certain.
“As for the existence of a god or gods in general, it could be true, but we have no evidence for it, and no way of knowing what it/they would want if it/they does/do exist.” — I would love to explore this with you with respect to emergence/mind and non-reductive physicalism, but that would be way off topic. Have you read anything from the following authors?
Philip Clayton
Nancy Murphy
Arthur Peacocke
“No. For example, I spend a great deal of time and energy arguing with “libertarians”, who have a quasi-religious unreasoning faith in “the Market”.” — Oh great. Another thing we can argue about. Long live Ludwig Von Mises!

Knockgoats,
Your infidels dot org perspective is laughable to watch implemented.
Reality and actuality cause you the cognitive dissonance so common in the anti-Christian spew that comes from the oh-so typical atheist soundhole.
Judge europeans for what europeans have always been and you have your answer for political power controlled by europeans. When they were acting like unbleievers is when they never had copies of the Gospels to lead the Christians among them. Hmm, evidence and logic may show they were non believers after all. Look at europeans TODAY.
The Christians that founded America kept the rabid and violent deists and atheists (secularists) in check. Wellll, a bit in check. The history of horror visited on the native peoples of America is there. So much for secularism being a nice political movement.
And anyone with a ninth grade education (that is willing to read) can see what Lincoln asserted that Christians should be like in regards to the owning of another human issue.
No, let’s use the evidence to guide us in our views of who is and who isn’t a Christian and let’s use the same guidelines for Atheists.
So we can say with assurance, the kind people that snatch a small child from a walk to and from their home and rape and kill them, as well as the kinds of people that can inflct horror and suffering “even” on their enemies, are by the power of study, acting like true NON believers in God. Truly the murderers and rapists believe there is no God and no afterlife . . . and act accordingly.
Evidence based knowledge Knockgoats. Your cut and paste bible lessons or no more impressive then those of Tomas Torquemada, or a mob member in Sodom. Or, well, a european implementing a pogrom “in the name of Christ.”
And my issue with fellow Christians? That is of no concern to you now is it? You being an atheist and all.
Like it or not pal, lemming-like, hedonistic and violent humans show a distinctive atheistitic gate to their march.
And we won’t get into how evolution “judges” homosexuality.

Mere_Christian,
When they were acting like unbleievers is when they never had copies of the Gospels to lead the Christians among them.
False. You do not deal with any of the clear counterexamples I gave.
The history of horror visited on the native peoples of America is there.
Almost entirely by Christians, from Columbus onwards.
And anyone with a ninth grade education (that is willing to read) can see what Lincoln asserted that Christians should be like in regards to the owning of another human issue.
The Bible is not my book nor Christianity my profession. – Abraham Lincoln
My earlier views of the unsoundness of the Christian scheme of salvation and the human origin of the scriptures, have become clearer and stronger with advancing years and I see no reason for thinking I shall ever change them. – Abraham Lincoln
“Mr. Lincoln’s maxim and philosophy were: ‘What is to be, will be, and no prayers of ours can arrest the decree.’ He never joined any Church. He was a religious man always, I think, but was not a technical Christian.” – Mary Todd Lincoln
While many Christians did oppose slavery, it was avidly defended by others on the grounds of its acceptance in both OT and NT.
So we can say with assurance, the kind people that snatch a small child from a walk to and from their home and rape and kill them, as well as the kinds of people that can inflct horror and suffering “even” on their enemies, are by the power of study, acting like true NON believers in God. Truly the murderers and rapists believe there is no God and no afterlife . . . and act accordingly.
This is truly despicable: you are simply defining those who act wickedly as unbelievers, despite what many of them say. Jim Jones considered himself a Christian. Peter Sutcliffe, a notorious British serial killer, heard the voice of Jesus telling him to go out and murder prostitutes. There have been a number of recent murders of doctors for performing abortions by professed Christians. Philip Garrido, the kidnapper of Jaycee Dugard, is a professed Christian and indeed a minister… On a larger scale, as I said, Christianity has a long and evil record of persecution and religious wars.
Your cut and paste bible lessons or no more impressive then those of Tomas Torquemada, or a mob member in Sodom. Or, well, a european implementing a pogrom “in the name of Christ.”
I have provided abundant evidence. You reply with hate-filled slanders. Every word you utter here proves my case.
And my issue with fellow Christians? That is of no concern to you now is it?
Hypocrisy is everyone’s concern.
Like it or not pal, lemming-like, hedonistic and violent humans show a distinctive atheistitic gate to their march.
What’s an “atheistitic gate”, pal? I suggest a remedial literacy course.
And we won’t get into how evolution “judges” homosexuality.
Evolution judges nothing, because it is a natural process, not an intelligent agent. In fact, however, homosexual behaviour is common across many species.

Gordon J. Glover,
What a relief to turn from Mere_Christian’s bile-filled effusions to a civilised debate!
what’s the problem with religion if it provides a context, or working model, to guide such rational/moral exercises? Certainly you can’t go wrong with “do unto others…” or “love your neighbor…”? In fact, all of the past injustices done in the name of Christ would never had occurred had such moral reasoning been implimented. It seems to me that your complaint is with inflexible religious dogma, not religious faith or moral reasoning per se.
I do not consider that it provides a useful context. Neither “do unto others…” or “love your neighbor…” is unique or original to Christianity or indeed to religion as a whole; the problem lies with the many additional precepts, many of them quite opposed to these simple maxims. In Christianity and other Abrahamic religions in particular, many of these are to do with what you must believe; many others, with outlawing conduct that does no harm to others. Liberal Christians spend a lot of time and energy in finding ways round the thoroughly unpleasant parts of the Bible that I have drawn numerous quotes from. The fact is, many injustices have been and still are done in the name of Christ: Christianity can only be judged by the deeds of professed Christians – without dishonestly trying, as Mere_Christian does, to exclude all those professed Christians who have committed atrocities.
Of course, atheists have committed atrocities also. Atheism in itself is merely disbelief in gods, and compatible with good or evil. I am certainly not opposed to moral reasoning – where have I ever suggested I am? Indeed, I would define my moral system as (I’m afraid it’s rather a mouthful) “pluralist-consequentialist humanitarian rationalism”. To start at the end, by “rationalism” I mean what I have set out: trying to align my confidence in beliefs and readiness to act on them according to the weight of evidence and argument. By “humanitarian” I mean that my moral judgements are founded primarily on the interests and preferences of sentient beings, primarily people. By “consequentialist” I mean judging actions and moral precepts themselves in terms of their consequences, not whether they are aligned to some (in my view illusory) absolute standard. By “pluralist” I mean that there is no single procedure by which actions or precepts can always be judged: we must always be ready to take into account multiple possible consequences, and to revise our moral judgements in the light of new considerations.
“Since doctrinally orthodox Christianity cannot possibly be true (the doctrine of the hypostatic union is necessarily false)…” — So is the wave-particle duality of light.
No, it isn’t, although this is a common misconception. Light behaves in some circumstances like a wave and in others like a particle, but quantum mechanics is specified mathematically, and the mathematics concerned is completely compatible with mathematical logic.
Just look at the inherent contradictions with the various quantum interpretations.
All the interpretations are consistent with the mathematics, and none are essential to it – none form part of quantum mechanics itself.
Therefore, being “logically consistent” is not a prerequisite for truth or even utility.
It is certainly a prerequisite for truth. I concede it may not be for utility.
For instance: either Relativity, Quantum mechanics or BOTH are necessarily false. All physicists know this. But something necessrily wrong but useful is better than nothing – which is useless. So we would be fools to overlook their utility, as currently understood, and reject them both outright.
That is true. But for this very reason, the two can only be used together (in relativistic quantum mechanics) with great caution, being careful to avoid using parts of them that are incompatible. Generally, they are used separately. Moreover, the inconsistency between them is recognised as the greatest problem in physics, and intensive efforts are continuing to resolve it. The doctrine of the hypostatic union, on the other hand, is proudly paraded as the very core of Christianity, making it superior to other religions: as “not a bug, but a feature”.
But don’t hide behind these claims that you stand on superior ground because you refuse to accept that which is not necessarily true or certain.
No, I refuse to accept that which is logically impossible; and that for which there is no evidence.
Long live Ludwig Von Mises!
Well indeed, if you are going to follow one unreasoning faith, why not make it two?

KT, the “atheistic gate” must be a metaphor for the “gates of hell” or something .
“I do not consider that it provides a useful context.” — Well, that I can accept. But for many, including myself, it does provide this – along with a sense of community.
“Neither “do unto others…” or “love your neighbor…” is unique or original to Christianity or indeed to religion as a whole…” — of course it is not. And neither is the Law of Moses unique to Hebrew culture. Yet somehow, Christianity gets to wear that albatross around its neck, while “love thy neighbor” is credited to pre-existing cultures. Doesn’t seem fair to me.
“…the problem lies with the many additional precepts, many of them quite opposed to these simple maxims.” — I don’t disagree with this on the surface, but I’m curious to know what examples you are thinking of.
“In Christianity and other Abrahamic religions in particular, many of these are to do with what you must believe; many others, with outlawing conduct that does no harm to others.” — No argument, but I’d like to know what specifically bothers you.
“Christianity can only be judged by the deeds of professed Christians – without dishonestly trying, as Mere_Christian does, to exclude all those professed Christians who have committed atrocities.” — Can we agree that it brings out the best/worst in people? Or do you insist that it is always a net negative?
Your moral system is very similar to mine. The difference is that, while exercising these same faculties, I draw from a particular tradition as a lawyer would from the precedent set by case law (did I just compare myself to a lawyer?). This faith tradition is not the final inflexible cookie-cutter answer to any and all problems (as a fundamentalist would pretend), but it does offer a starting point, set boundaries, and provide a sounding board for contemporary moral thought.
“The doctrine of the hypostatic union, on the other hand, is proudly paraded as the very core of Christianity, making it superior to other religions: as “not a bug, but a feature”.
I would argue that this doctrine is a model to help finite beings grasp a concept that is bigger than ourselves. And even though the mechanics of this model are “necessarily false” according to the dictates of reason, religion often engages themes that are larger than our ability to reason, and therefore such paradoxes should be expected. In fact, mysteries such as these should promote humility, inspire awe and wonder. It’s the difference between poetry and technical writing. You can actually say much more with fewer words once liberated from the exacting language of scientific accuracy. Just a few well-constructed sentences juxtaposing disparate themes can envoke strong emotions and speak volumes. You just can’t do that when your pen is held captive to reason.
“No, I refuse to accept that which is logically impossible; and that for which there is no evidence.” — Do you accept circular reasoning? I noticed that you employ logic and reason to defend your worldview, which is based in logic and reason. Other than being internally consistent, I don’t any evidence to support this outside of utility [which is a good enough reason in my mind].
“Well indeed, if you are going to follow one unreasoning faith, why not make it two?” — Hey,where would H. sapiens be without competition, struggle, failure and adaptibility? If Dinosours had recieved a “bailout” after the Chicxulub crisis, we might still be rodents!

Glover – I noticed that you employ logic and reason to defend your worldview, which is based in logic and reason. Other than being internally consistent, I don’t any evidence to support this outside of utility [which is a good enough reason in my mind].
To quote the Founding Father, Ethan Allen:
“Those who invalidate reason ought seriously to consider whether they argue against reason with or without reason; if with reason, then they establish the principle that they are laboring to dethrone, but if they argue without reason, (which, in order to be consistent with themselves, they must do) they are out of the reach of rational conviction, nor do they deserve a rational argument.”
And then to quote Woody Allen: “Is knowledge knowable? If not, how do we know this?”
:->

Two things.
I meant “gait” g a i t and in my haste to deal with wolves stalking the pen I wrote g a t e.
Not a metaphoe I assure you.
Next, about bad people “IN” the Church. This from “back in the day” by Jude (1) about bad Christians:
. . . I felt the necessity to write to you appealing that you (I)contend earnestly for the faith which was once for all handed down to the saints.
4For certain persons have crept in unnoticed, those who were long beforehand marked out for this condemnation, ungodly persons who turn the grace of our God into LICENTIOUSNESS and deny our only Master and Lord, Jesus Christ.
///

Gordon J. Glover,
I’ve already gone on at some length on various threads about the aspects of Christianity I deplore: misogyny, homophobia, authoritarianism, the doctrine of vicarious atonement, the insistence that we are all “miserable sinners”, religious intolerance, condonation of slavery, threats of hell, anti-rationality (which I see you partake in)…, all of which have Biblical warrant. Except for vicarious atonement, these are all common to the other Abrahamic religions, and most to other religions besides – I concentrate my attack on Christianity as the most powerful of them. By coincidence I was listening to a news item today about the “cylinder of Cyrus”, on which the 6th century BCE Persian king had his decree of religious tolerance (under which the Jews were allowed to return to Palestine) inscribed. Only took Christians about 2,400 years to catch up – and then only as Christianity was losing ground to rational enquiry!
I would argue that this doctrine is a model to help finite beings grasp a concept that is bigger than ourselves. And even though the mechanics of this model are “necessarily false” according to the dictates of reason, religion often engages themes that are larger than our ability to reason, and therefore such paradoxes should be expected. In fact, mysteries such as these should promote humility, inspire awe and wonder. It’s the difference between poetry and technical writing.
That’s nonsense almost as blithering as the doctrine itself. I remind you that early Christians slaughtered each other over the exact relationship between the human and divine aspects of Jesus. You don’t do that over poetry – even Vogon poetry.
I noticed that you employ logic and reason to defend your worldview, which is based in logic and reason. Other than being internally consistent, I don’t any evidence to support this outside of utility [which is a good enough reason in my mind].
What Ray said. Also, it is always possible that logic and reason will at some point lead to the conclusion that logic and reason are faulty (they already have led us to unexpected findings about the limitations of formal systems, as in the work of Goedel and Turing). If so, I’ll start casting spells and sacrificing goats.
Hey,where would H. sapiens be without competition, struggle, failure and adaptibility? If Dinosours had recieved a “bailout” after the Chicxulub crisis, we might still be rodents!
Ah, but we might be accompanying intelligent dinosaurs (as pets and/or vermin) on their exploration of the Andromeda galaxy!

Can we agree that it brings out the best/worst in people? Or do you insist that it is always a net negative? – Gordon J. Glover
Sorry, I neglected to answer this. No, I don’t insist it is always a net negative, but on balance, we’d be much better without it. Someone said: without religion, good people will do good, evil people will do evil. It takes religion [or, I would add, any similarly irrational belief-system, such as Marxism-Leninism or “libertarianism”) to make good people do evil. Voltaire said: “Those who can make you believe absurdities, can make you commit atrocities.”

“I remind you that early Christians slaughtered each other over the exact relationship between the human and divine aspects of Jesus.” — so anything people fight about is invalid? Early Americans slaughtered each other over the exact relationship between the citizen and the state and over the status of slaves. Does that mean these debates have no place? On what basis?
“Also, it is always possible that logic and reason will at some point lead to the conclusion that logic and reason are faulty…” — you missed the point entirely. Obviously we employ these things and they are largely self-consistent. But they are also self-referential.
I consider myself a pretty rational person. But in order to engage the world in which I find myslef, I have to recognize the limits of reason. I’ve managed to stay married for 15 years to an artist/romantic type. Don’t ask me how it happened, it just did. There are many situations in which I have to be tuned into an antirely different wavelength or else I’m going to fail miserably. I would, of course, prefer to live my life rather one-dimensionally; always taking the most logical course of action appropriate to the situation. But I’d probably be single if I actually tried it.
For instance, take any anniversary/holiday/birthday event. Like most families, we have pretty tight budget. So the most rational approach to these events would be to save up for those things that we need the most, and present them to eachother on these occasions. But I learned long ago that the more utility a present has, the longer I sleep on the couch. Get something totally worthless (from a functional perspective), or better yet, something that dies in a few days, and I’m a hero. The gifts that work best have an intagible and esoteric value that I am inclined to dismiss as “blithering nonesense”. Do I understand it? No. Can I explain it? No. Does it make any sense? No. Is my experience unique? No. But if I don’t formulate something that captures this valuable lesson, my life will be harder than it needs to be.
Similarly, religions obviously engage those aspects of the human experience that evade pure logic and reason. Even legal systems can’t be rigidly applied without respect to the situation. I’m not saying that only a person of faith can sucessfully navigate this terrain, but these faith traditions provide a context by which one can do this as part of a community.
I don’t lose much sleep over those who don’t believe as I do, but those who go out of their way to put down or diminish this dimension of the human experience seem just as inflexible and dogmatic as those they often rail against.

Gordon J. Glover
“I remind you that early Christians slaughtered each other over the exact relationship between the human and divine aspects of Jesus.” — so anything people fight about is invalid?
You miss the point entirely. It was you who was babbling about how this was poetry pointing at that which passeth understanding. I’m just pointing out that those Christians who murdered each other over the precise wording, in those early centuries when it was thrashed out (literally!) evidently didn’t agree with you.
“Also, it is always possible that logic and reason will at some point lead to the conclusion that logic and reason are faulty…” — you missed the point entirely. Obviously we employ these things and they are largely self-consistent. But they are also self-referential.
No, I just thought you had made the case yourself. Beyond self-consistency: they work. What more could there possibly be? The search for ultimate justifications is always futile. Most people in our culture with anything of a philosophical bent realise this in adolescence.
but those who go out of their way to put down or diminish this dimension of the human experience seem just as inflexible and dogmatic as those they often rail against.
I only started commenting here because of the misrepresentations of atheism the site contains: specifically, the false claim that atheists “struggle” with the non-objectivity of values. In online debate, I neither give nor expect quarter. In RL, I never proselytise unless proselytised against, I work with a close and valued colleague who is a creationist, and I get on well with my father-in-law, who prays every night.

I’m not saying that only a person of faith can sucessfully navigate this terrain, but these faith traditions provide a context by which one can do this as part of a community. – Gordon J. Glover
Problem is, these “faith traditions” have a great deal of baggage you can’t just pretend isn’t there: baggage which hurts other people.