I'd be happy to hear an argument for ensoulment at all, but I don't expect anything remotely convincing.Also problematic is the idea of the soul. If other animals are without this lovely thing, God must have chosen a moment in evolutionary history when we were “human enough” to merit souls. Since evolution is an achingly incremental process, there was no single moment when we crossed a line from “prehuman” into “human.” And even if there was, we’re left with the odd prospect of a generation of children who are ensouled but whose parents are not, or some similarly strange scenario. I’d be very happy to hear an argument for ensoulment (of the species, not the individual) that makes more sense, but have not yet.
"The malformed chicken that is the human brain is in a state of perpetual defecation...."(Hyperbolic metaphors aside, McGowan is a brilliant writer. I'm tempted to buy his book even though I'm not a parent.)
 |
| Giles Fraser |
What is distinctive about Atheism UK, Green insists, is that it's an atheist organisation for all atheists, including those not committed to humanism. "We cater for atheists who are not humanists," he says.
These days, atheists who are not humanists are an unfamiliar breed. Most atheists, and in particular the new atheists, regard themselves as committed humanists. Indeed, they are new in name only for they appeal back to the atheistic humanism of the Enlightenment, with its optimism about human nature and strong belief in the power of human reason and the inevitability of progress.
The sunny optimism of the Enlightenment – not least its commitment to progress and a sense of the intrinsic goodness of human nature – was profoundly dented by the horrors of the first world war and the Nazi death camps.
The Enlightenment hadn't found another word for sin.
And just as Nietzsche proclaimed the death of God, a developing anti-humanism started to announce what, in less gender-conscious times, Foucault was to call "the death of man". Indeed, Nietzsche himself insisted the belief in humanity was itself just a hangover from a belief in God and, once God was eradicated, the belief in human beings would follow the same way.
Richard Green's "atheists who are not humanists" could meet in a phone box. Indeed, the new atheists simply duck the challenge made by atheistic anti-humanism, believing their expensive scientific toys can outflank the alleged conceptual weakness of their humanism.
Thus they dismiss the significance of philosophy just as much as they have always done of theology – as if the two were fundamentally in cahoots.
"The purpose of BioLogos is to show that there can be harmony between mainstream science and evangelical Christianity."Before you can show such a thing, that thing has to be true. 2 + 2 = 5
Eugenics, at least as an organized movement, died out in the mid-twentieth century for a variety of reasons. Biological determinism was in decline in the mid-twentieth century, especially in the fields of psychology and anthropology, but in many other fields too. Also, critics of eugenics were able to capitalize on the shoddy quality of some of the science underpinning eugenics. Nazi atrocities brought eugenics into greater disrepute. Finally, the call for freedom of reproductive choice that accompanied the Sexual Revolution in the 1960s contradicted the compulsory measures advocated by earlier progressives. (p 99.)
The story, theoretically plausible, says that if enough monkeys pound out random letters long enough, all of the great texts in history will eventually result. If enough monkeys pound out random letters for a long enough time, all of the great texts, such as Moby Dick (1,170,200 characters), Grimms Tales (1,435,800 characters) and the King James Bible (3,556,480 letters not including spaces) will eventually result. The finiteness of the closed universe, however, prohibits this. (p 93.)
"Templeton prostitutes science, insisting it can be tarted up and will give faith a good time. It's an Indecent Proposal, allowing science to get screwed for a round million."
What happened to Chris Baird's discussion about the "Is the Bible unbelievable?" show last Saturday? It seems to have disappeared. I was about to stick my oar in, and found the thread had vanished, which is a shame because the exchange between Chris and James Croft was getting interesting. Anyway, this is what I was going to post, prompted by Justin's brief but insistent quizzing of Leslie Scrace:
I agree with James. The theistic claim to transcendental moral knowledge is bogus. Its basis is in scripture, which is no more than "it's written in this book, therefore it must be true." The suggestion that this is some kind of superior "foundation" for morality doesn't hold up to inspection.
For instance, why this book and not some other? Is it a matter of personal preference that a Christian takes his or her morality from the Bible? If a Christian claims to have had a personal revelation that Christian moral law is true, is that anything more than a subjective feeling?
Christians are forever asking (as Justin did on last Saturday's show) for the atheistic "foundation" for morality, when their own "foundation" is nothing of the kind.
Sticking resolutely to an arbitrary list of rules regardless of the consequences is morally irresponsible. It's an abnegation of one's duty to do right by one's fellows. And before any theists ask me again why I have any reason to think that such an attitude — or indeed duty — is moral, I will simply say this: basing my actions on what appears to promote progress towards mutual wellbeing produces results that are on the whole beneficial to the human race. What more do I need?
There is an odd notion in theistic circles that morality must by definition be transcendent. The sooner we get rid of this erroneous idea the better for humankind. (More on my blog.)
ALMIGHTY GOD: Camping! You old reprobate! What d'you think you're playing at?
HAROLD CAMPING: Lord?
AG: You know what I'm talking about! All these billboards!
HC: Lord, I spread the knowledge of your coming, so that —
AG: I never told you to do that!
HC: But the code, the seven thousand years...
AG: Precisely! The code. Did it ever cross your mind that I might have put it in code for a reason?
HC: I, er...
AG: A code, Camping. A code is supposed to be secret. And what have you done? Only spilled the beans to the whole world!
HC: But Lord, I thought —
AG: Never mind what you thought, Camping. It's clear to me that you didn't think. I've got limited accommodation up here. Do you think I want just anybody swanning about in Paradise? Heaven is supposed to be exclusive, you know.
HC: Well, I don't think there will be that many...
AG: Too late! Deal's off.
HC: Lord?
AG: You heard me. I've changed my mind. Nobody's going to be raptured. As for the world, I'll sort something out later this year, I haven't time to think about it now.
HC: But what am I going to say to —
AG: Tell them what you like. Not my problem. You got yourself into this mess, you can get out of it.
HC: Lord, if I could just —
AG: That'll be all, Camping. I don't expect to see you again anytime soon.
HC: That's a great comfort, Lord.
AG: Don't get me wrong, Camping. What you've done has displeased — nay, annoyed me intensely. Easily enough to revoke your ticket. So it's possible you might be seeing the other chap sooner than you think.
HC: Oh.
AG: Yes. So sort it out yourself. Now, if you'll excuse me — and you will — I've got to go and be ineffable for a while. [Almighty God effs off.]
HC: Of course, Lord. [a pause] Mmm, let me see. Ineffable...
At the foundation of these efforts, however, was a naturalistic approach to knowledge itself (epistemology). The logic went like this: If humans are products of Darwinian natural selection, that obviously includes the human brain–which in turn means all our beliefs and values are products of evolutionary forces: Ideas arise in the human brain by chance, just like Darwin's chance variations in nature; and the ones that stick around to become firm beliefs and convictions are those that give an advantage in the struggle for survival. This view of knowledge came to be called pragmatism (truth is what works) or instrumentalism (ideas are merely tools for survival). (p 82.)
This week on Unbelievable : Is the Bible Unbelievable? Leslie Scrace & Chris Sinkinson
Former Methodist minister turned atheist Leslie Scrace stopped reading the Bible after he lost his faith. 20 years later he read it again and wrote a book-by-book account of how he views it as an atheist called "An Unbelievers Guide to the Bible". Leslie criticises parts of the Old Testament that he sees as primitive and immoral while praising other parts of scripture that illustrate humanist values. Chris Sinkinson is a church pastor and teaches Old Testament and Apologetics at Moorlands Bible College. He responds saying that the Bible can't be dissected in the way Leslie attempts and that taking God out of the morality of the Bible robs it of its meaning. They discuss books such as Job, Joshua, Song of Solomon and the Gospels. Chris also challenges Leslie on whether his humanist morality has any objective foundation.
Where does the "better" come from? This is the whole problem, for me, of the humanist perspective — that they talk about better this and better that, all the while denying that there is this standard that the better is getting closer to.
But you haven't explained what this proper standard is and how it exists independently of evolution and everything else.
"So what's this Uncaged Monkeys thing you're going to see then? Is it a band?"It may have been different, geeky, at times hilarious and at other times intensely moving. It may not be the usual fare at the Basingstoke Anvil, but it filled pretty well all of the hall's 1400 seats.
"No, it's not a band."
"A play?"
"No, it's ... science. And comedy."
"Oh. That sounds —"
"By the people in Radio Four's The Infinite Monkey Cage. You heard of that?"
"Er, no."
"Well, they just got a Sony Award."
“I’ve never really understood this argument about ‘Should the Church get involved in politics? Yes or no?’ To me, Christianity, faith, religion, the Church, is involved in politics because so many political questions are moral questions. . ."A horrible and divisive slur. Cameron is implying that only "Christianity, faith, religion, the Church" can provide answers to moral questions.
It's become a mantra for Darwinists to claim that ID isn't science. That's used as a put-down from the start as a device to ignore the gathering weight of empirical evidence that challenges Darwinism.
"It's become a mantra for lawyers to claim that this woman is guilty of a crime. That's used as a put-down from the start as a device to ignore the gathering weight of empirical evidence that her neighbours watch Sky Sports on a Saturday."
Indeed, Darwinians, who claim that all of life is motivated by an irresistible drive for survival, which necessarily means a drive for power, are poorly positioned to claim a special exemption from the very force they say rules life. (pp. 79-80)
"Applicants should be able to demonstrate an interest in and commitment to the design argument."
"You must be able to demonstrate an interest in and commitment to the design argument. Required application materials include (1) a résumé or C.V. (2) a short statement of your interest in intelligent design and its perceived relationship to your area of work and life and (3) a letter of recommendation from a person of standing who knows your work and is friendly towards ID."
"Application to join the Summer School is a two-part process: 1: a preliminary application involving no cost; 2: final application with full agreed payment being made at the time of application."
"Because of professional sensitivities, participation in the conference will be handled in strict confidence and with anonymity."