Dawkins vs Lennox; The God Delusion

[Caroljeen]

Sure, horrific acts have been committed by atheists, but not in the name of atheism or because atheism sanctions such behaviour. The only thing that unites atheists is the lack of belief in God. They can be as vile, as corrupt, as morally depraved as anyone else, but they cannot justify this by calling on their religion.

"When the era of Communist rule began in Russia in 1917, religion was seen as a hindrance to a thriving socialist society. As Karl Marx, coauthor of the The Communist Manifesto, declared, “Communism begins where atheism begins.”

Joseph Stalin, as the second leader of the Soviet Union, tried to enforce militant atheism on the republic. The new “socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one, free of the religious chains that had helped to bind him to class oppression. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killing and imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.

“He saw this as a way of getting rid of a past that was holding people back, and marching towards the future of science and progress,” says the historian Steven Merritt Miner, author of Stalin's Holy War: Religion, Nationalism, and Alliance Politics. “Like most of what Stalin did, he accelerated the violence of the Leninist period.”

Why Stalin Tried to Stamp Out Religion in the Soviet Union | HISTORY

Joseph Stalin led a uniquely brutal campaign against religion and religious leaders.

www.history.com

Is this article untrue? Did Stalin attempt to turn Russia into a communist country by first getting rid of those who believe in God in hopes of eliminating even the concept of God? It's not impossible that an atheist would do such things in the name of atheism, is it?
I understand that not all atheists are like Stalin. If you were a US citizen and believer in a God/god would you be hesitant in voting for an atheist running for president? It would depend on what that atheist candidate said and did in his past and during his campaign, correct?

 

[Caroljeen]

no text

 

[Tiburon]

Anyone with even a half way decent eye for sentence structure and without an axe to grind would conclude that the author of the gospel is the same as the author of the epistle. Just compare the very first chapter.

Which epistle? You know there's more than one don't you?

 

[Temujin]

"When the era of Communist rule began in Russia in 1917, religion was seen as a hindrance to a thriving socialist society. As Karl Marx, coauthor of the The Communist Manifesto, declared, “Communism begins where atheism begins.”

Joseph Stalin, as the second leader of the Soviet Union, tried to enforce militant atheism on the republic. The new “socialist man,” Stalin argued, was an atheist one, free of the religious chains that had helped to bind him to class oppression. From 1928 until World War II, when some restrictions were relaxed, the totalitarian dictator shuttered churches, synagogues and mosques and ordered the killing and imprisonment of thousands of religious leaders in an effort to eliminate even the concept of God.

“He saw this as a way of getting rid of a past that was holding people back, and marching towards the future of science and progress,” says the historian Steven Merritt Miner, author of Stalin's Holy War: Religion, Nationalism, and Alliance Politics. “Like most of what Stalin did, he accelerated the violence of the Leninist period.”

Why Stalin Tried to Stamp Out Religion in the Soviet Union | HISTORY

Joseph Stalin led a uniquely brutal campaign against religion and religious leaders.

www.history.com

Is this article untrue? Did Stalin attempt to turn Russia into a communist country by first getting rid of those who believe in God in hopes of eliminating even the concept of God? It's not impossible that an atheist would do such things in the name of atheism, is it?
I understand that not all atheists are like Stalin. If you were a US citizen and believer in a God/god would you be hesitant in voting for an atheist running for president? It would depend on what that atheist candidate said and did in his past and during his campaign, correct?

Stalin hated religion. He wanted to promote his brand of communism. He wanted to secure power for himself. Atheism didn't drive hom to do these things. Atheism may have been the excuse, or the cloak he used to cover his actions, but there's nothing about atheism or atheists that drives them to act in this way. It doesn't forbid such behaviour either. It doesn't do anything. So, yes it's perfectly possible that an atheist may do bad things and claim to be doing them in the name of atheism. But it would be a lie, since atheism doesn't demand action. It doesn't put obligation on its followers. It's descriptive, not proscriptive.

I find it very difficult to imagine myself as a believer in God in any meaningful way. Many Christians think that atheists are the same as them but with a different set of beliefs, but that's not true. Please forgive the following rather tortuous analogy. I am a bridge player. Bridge is a surprisingly complex game and for those in the higher echelons it consumes a large part of one's life. There are various sects of competing conventions, such as American Five Card Major, British Acol and Italian Club, which all have strengths and weaknesses and have strong adherents and detractors. There are people who dabble in bridge, some who play seriously a couple of times a week and some who devote their whole waking life to its study. And then there are non-bridge players, for whom this whole sphere of human activity is completely blank. They aren't interested in the best way to bid a 4-4-4-1distribution or the safest way to bid a slam. They just don't care or do anything bridge related at all. That's the position of the atheist. Do you answer your question, I would feel about voting for a politician according to their policies. I might relate to them better if they played bridge and used bridge imagery to describe events and ideas, but I wouldn't distrust a non-bridge player, or care very much about their position on doubling a One No-Trump contract. I just don't see that religious belief is any more important in a politician. And I recognise that's because I don't think like a Christian. It's not a superior condition, just a different one, and irrelevant to one's qualities as a human being or a potential president...

I would add, tongue in cheek, that if it was any of my business I would definitely recommend One No-Trump.

 

[Tiburon]

There has been a lot of doubt cast on the authors and the dates of the gospels and the epistles. John was close to Jesus. He was in his inner circle. Every author is different. The gospel and epistles of John all sound like the same person to me. What are your sources? What are the few discrepancies between Luke and Paul? Paul had conflict with Luke? Are you sure?

There are discrepancies between The Acts and Paul's letters about where Paul was when. If Luke and Paul were truly close buds, surely he would have got it right. I'm not sure that Paul and Luke had conflict. He certainly had conflict with some of the other disciples about the keeping of the law.

 

[Tiburon]

...and inspired by God.

According to believers. Is there any reason why I should give that any credence?

Not quite.

How would you define a justice system?

Many?

I assume you are thinking of highly "developed" societies. There are still many extant tribal societies with little influence from ours.
They may worship a God but they don't have churches, they may have a designated "healer" but they don't have hospitals.

Same for evolution. It's just a process.

A process that results in new characteristics and new abilities. Thus nature can give.

True. Maybe with probing a real scientist might use those words.

Probing? A real scientist might use those words if asked to dumb it down for a lay person, But they wouldn't think like that.

Why do I trust my mind? I don't trust it because of what others have gone through or because of the cauldron of survival the human species has gone through, but because my mind, so far, has helped me to understand the world in which I live and work, and it helps me to understand the inner things about myself, my emotions, my desires, and it allows me to know God. I believe the mind is much more than what a naturalist thinks it is.

Exactly. You trust your mind because of experience with using it in everyday life. It's origin is irrelevant to that.

I thought Polkinghorne was talking about 2 humans confronting each other in a rational discourse. The conversation would be electrochemical neural events (which is not thought), and then this event is formed into words, spoken to the other person who receives those words and processes them by electrochemical processes... Where do thoughts come in?
What do you mean by "millions"?

You tell me where thoughts come in? What are thoughts? What are the electrochemical neural events doing if they are not involved in thinking?
Or do you think they are involved they just aren't actual thoughts. Are electrochemical neural events products of thought rather than generators of thought?
How are these events formed into words.

That doesn't help me understand what you mean.
Are you saying that these electrochemical neural events go to certain sections of our brains and consist of millions of sparks across synapses which somehow create thoughts?

Yes I'm saying that a thought cannot be reduced to one electrochemical neural event a thought consist of millions of sparks across millions of synapses.
Polkinghorne argument seems to be one from incredulity.

There are many ways to evaluate the "realness of God", but the main way is that I feel his presence, the presence of his Spirit in me or near/with me.

So the "realness of God" comes down to a subjective feeling.

Our Creator enjoys variety in every aspect of life. He created the perfect planet for us to live and thrive on. In this we know that he is caring, loving, gentle, and considerate. Just a couple of things. I'm too tired to think of more at the moment.

Firstly it assumes a creator and that the universe as we perceive it is a true reflection of that creator.
Some humans survive and thrive on this planet. Others suffer and die in unimaginably terrible ways.

It's just the pain of dying that makes me cringe. I'm not afraid of what happens after I die when I leave this body. Yes, the prospect of being with Jesus certainly is someone to look forward to knowing face to face.
I'm not sure what you mean.

Well you say the pain of dying makes you cringe. Fair enough. However I would have thought the prospect of being in heaven with God would outweigh that, at least for many Christians. Yet they seem to make just as much effort as everyone else to avoid that.

I think you could find instances where being killed or being a slave might provide happiness but not being raped.

I'm not sure they would provide happiness. I'm sure there would be situations where they make better choices than the alternative.
All other things being equal I doubt there would be many takers for those options.

God doesn't force us to do anything against our will. IOW, He doesn't impose his will on us.

No, but we are talking about overall morality. Not just a particular choice bye a particular person. So if there is a God I'm not sure how there could be fleeting morality.

Jesus's death on the cross was done for others, not himself. His prayer in the garden proves this.
Luke 22:41-42 Then he withdrew from them about a stone’s throw, knelt down, and prayed, 42 “Father, if you are willing, remove this cup from me, yet not my will but yours be done.”

But if you believe that Jesus is God then he was doing it to achieve his own ends so it was still "selfish".

The desire to not go to the cross.

Again, If Jesus is God and knew that he was God then this makes no sense.

What do you mean by "at their core humans are in general absolute?

I mean that in general humans have always had the same needs and our morality springs from that.
What it means to be human doesn't change, it is essentially an absolute.

It's the meaning(s) of the word, absolute. Basically, absolute in regard to morality means there is a set standard for everyone. Is there one?

I believe so. Whether we adhere to it is a different question.

No, he's given us a free will and with that comes a sharing of his power. He gives us the power to choose according to our will. God doesn't force his will on us. Read below if you want a better understanding of how I view God.

I'm not talking about forcing his will on anyone. I'm talking about overcoming the hardening of your conscience. So that the making of a choice that goes against that conscience is as difficult the tenth or the one hundredth time as it was the first time.

We disagree but I do agree environmental factors play a part in how we respond.
Yes, their conscience would convict them when they do wrong.

I had to change quite a bit in order to be like Jesus. I'm still not even close.

Of course not. Jesus is an idealised version of what we think man should be. We don't create heroes that we can easily outstrip.

 

[Caroljeen]

There are discrepancies between The Acts and Paul's letters about where Paul was when. If Luke and Paul were truly close buds, surely he would have got it right. I'm not sure that Paul and Luke had conflict. He certainly had conflict with some of the other disciples about the keeping of the law.

Would you show me the discrepancy?

 

[stiggy wiggy]

Which epistle?

John's 1st.

You know there's more than one don't you?

I said especially the 1st chapter. You do know that his 2nd and 3rd epistles have no chapters, don't you?

 

[Gus Bovona]

It's just the pain of dying that makes me cringe. I'm not afraid of what happens after I die when I leave this body. Yes, the prospect of being with Jesus certainly is someone to look forward to knowing face to face.

The corollary to the question of why Christians try to avoid death when death just means going to heaven (presumably) is why Christians are so sad when a loved one dies - far sadder than they need to be given that it might well be only a few number of years before they would be reunited in heaven with a loved one.

I see my grieving as a physical, bodily process as much as an emotional one, so I imagine a grieving Christian's body driving a good bit of that grief, unaware of the theology that says that it's only a temporary absence. Christians (like anyone else) grieve like they - or their bodies - understand that the separation will be forever.

 

[Caroljeen]

It was a contrived story designed to make a point, but it's poorly done as no scientist worth his salt would say

"Sometimes, when in conversation with my fellow scientists, I ask them "What do you do science with?"
"My mind," say some, and others, who hold the view that the mind is the brain, say, "My brain".
"Tell me about your brain? How does it come to exist?"
"By means of natural, mindless, unguided processes."

I think those scientists answered Lennox's question with "evolution" In the telling of the story, Lennox exchanged "evolution" for his preferred description/definition of the term as "natural, mindless, unguided processes". Is Lennox lying or just making a point in telling his story this way?

He seems to be steering a middle path between evolution and God having a hand in it. He cannot prove any of this though, it's just his belief.

I'm excited about it!

But that's what it is.

It guides in the same sort of way that the Earth's gravitational field will guide a meteor that get's too near to it, by means of natural processes.

Then you are describing the process just like Coyne.... with lawfulness or a lawful process.

Yes, I agree that a universe that has no caring is unguided in the way you mean guided. But that is what we see, an uncaring universe and yet you ascribe to it a divine guidance.

yes, I do. The universe and evolution may be uncaring but God is not.

From the point of view of evolution, our brains/minds evolved to help us survive, so they can be trusted because they produce results.

We don't know the context of Darwin's quote. It could be that the quote is rhetorical and that later he gives an answer or statement that clarifies his thinking on this. Do you know the context of it?

There is the part in Genesis 2 where God formed man from the earth. Let's call that evolution. In this part the material brain evolved.

Then he breathed into man and he became a living soul. Let's call this God intervening in the process. In this part man was given a immaterial mind.

Gen 2:7 then the Lord God formed man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

I'm not sure if this is what Lennox would mean by God intervening in the process.

As for Darwin's quote, there is a footnote in Lennox's book, Can Science explain every thing?, it has, Letter to William Graham, 3rd July 1881. The University of Cambridge Darwin Correspondence project, goo.gl/Jfyu9Q (accessed 28th June 2018) ( or the" .gl "could be" .g1". )

What evidence do you have that the mind is other than the brain?

Subjective evidence and what the is written in the Bible.
Having seen enough people die, something happens when the light goes out of the eyes and you see that blank stare...something more than the mere shutdown of a human.

 

[Caroljeen]

Stalin hated religion. He wanted to promote his brand of communism. He wanted to secure power for himself. Atheism didn't drive hom to do these things. Atheism may have been the excuse, or the cloak he used to cover his actions, but there's nothing about atheism or atheists that drives them to act in this way. It doesn't forbid such behaviour either. It doesn't do anything. So, yes it's perfectly possible that an atheist may do bad things and claim to be doing them in the name of atheism. But it would be a lie, since atheism doesn't demand action. It doesn't put obligation on its followers. It's descriptive, not proscriptive.

In the same way, the so-called Christians who tortured and killed during the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition did not have God's approval. Jesus led as an example to his disciples. He died for his enemies because he loved them. As his followers, we should do the same.
Stalin and those hypocritical Christians are then both liars.

I find it very difficult to imagine myself as a believer in God in any meaningful way. Many Christians think that atheists are the same as them but with a different set of beliefs, but that's not true. Please forgive the following rather tortuous analogy. I am a bridge player. Bridge is a surprisingly complex game and for those in the higher echelons it consumes a large part of one's life. There are various sects of competing conventions, such as American Five Card Major, British Acol and Italian Club, which all have strengths and weaknesses and have strong adherents and detractors. There are people who dabble in bridge, some who play seriously a couple of times a week and some who devote their whole waking life to its study. And then there are non-bridge players, for whom this whole sphere of human activity is completely blank. They aren't interested in the best way to bid a 4-4-4-1distribution or the safest way to bid a slam. They just don't care or do anything bridge related at all. That's the position of the atheist.

Can you be an atheist without having animosity towards Christians? Or are you truly apathetic toward religion?

Do you answer your question, I would feel about voting for a politician according to their policies. I might relate to them better if they played bridge and used bridge imagery to describe events and ideas, but I wouldn't distrust a non-bridge player, or care very much about their position on doubling a One No-Trump contract. I just don't see that religious belief is any more important in a politician. And I recognise that's because I don't think like a Christian. It's not a superior condition, just a different one, and irrelevant to one's qualities as a human being or a potential president...

I would add, tongue in cheek, that if it was any of my business I would definitely recommend One No-Trump.

I didn't vote for Trump based on his arrogant demeanor. I didn't think he was last 4 years.
What is "One No-Trump? (Do I really care to know?)

 

[Caroljeen]

The corollary to the question of why Christians try to avoid death when death just means going to heaven (presumably) is why Christians are so sad when a loved one dies - far sadder than they need to be given that it might well be only a few number of years before they would be reunited in heaven with a loved one.

It's always a loss when a loved one dies.

I see my grieving as a physical, bodily process as much as an emotional one, so I imagine a grieving Christian's body driving a good bit of that grief, unaware of the theology that says that it's only a temporary absence. Christians (like anyone else) grieve like they - or their bodies - understand that the separation will be forever.

Christians know that we will receive another body that will "house" our soul different than our natural body we have in this world. It doesn't hurt for your soul/spirit to leave the body. It's whatever it is that is causing the body to die...that's what is painful for many.
I don't think I can look at grieving as a physical, bodily process because of my faith in a future resurrection.

 

[Temujin]

In the same way, the so-called Christians who tortured and killed during the Crusades or Spanish Inquisition did not have God's approval. Jesus led as an example to his disciples. He died for his enemies because he loved them. As his followers, we should do the same.
Stalin and those hypocritical Christians are then both liars.

Can you be an atheist without having animosity towards Christians? Or are you truly apathetic toward religion?

I didn't vote for Trump based on his arrogant demeanor. I didn't think he was last 4 years.
What is "One No-Trump? (Do I really care to know?)

From an atheist perspective, no Christians have the approval of God for their actions, while all Christians believe that they do, so that criticism doesn't work fro my point of view, though I can see how it does from yours. Sadly some of the greatest atrocities come from one set of Christians trying to show another set just who it is who has God's approval.

Why would there be animosity? I like Christians. I love the architecture, the music, the costumes and magic spells. It's real theatre. I just don't believe that it's real. I might envy the simplicity and certainty, but animosity? No.

To explain No Trump contracts would be you explaining baseball to me. I suspect it's not worth it for either of us.

 

[Eightcrackers]

It's always a loss when a loved one dies.

Why, for Christians?

 

[Caroljeen]

Why, for Christians?

If the loved one is a Christian, you love them and will miss them, and look forward to seeing them.
If the loved one is not a Christian, It's very sad.

 

[Eightcrackers]

If the loved one is a Christian, you love them and will miss them, and look forward to seeing them.

You will be seeing them for the rest of eternity - literally any finite time without them is as nothing, compared to that.

 

[Tiburon]

John's 1st.
I said especially the 1st chapter. You do know that his 2nd and 3rd epistles have no chapters, don't you?

None of them did. Chapters were put in later. You could say that the 2nd and 3rd have only one chapter.

 

[Tiburon]

Would you show me the discrepancy?

I don't remember them offhand but I'll dig them out.

 

[stiggy wiggy]

None of them did.

Incorrect. The first epistle was divided up into five chapters when the Church canonized it. You really need to make sure you are properly educated on these things before mouthing off about them.

 

[Tiburon]

Incorrect. The first epistle was divided up into five chapters when the Church canonized it. You really need to make sure you are properly educated on these things before mouthing off about them.

So not when it was written? You just confirmed what I said.