1

I was surprised to see the intro of The Kingdom, 2007 movie with so many positive comments. I guess people do want to learn a lot more about the middle east. The DVD comes out December 26, 2007.

2

Hi Joe,

Re: weird quote by Richard Dawkins.

I think it's likely you're just being playful to describe the quote as "weird". But in case you're being serious, I would respond by suggesting it would be weird if Mr. Dawkins, a native of a Christian nation, were not a cultural Christian.

And it would be even weirder, given his outspoken commitment to the truth, for him to deny that part of his identity if it existed.

By the way, congratulations on being a staffer for Gov. Huckabee. He is lucky to have you on his team. I wish you great success, although not so much that you end up keeping the candidacy out of the hands of Sen. Thompson :)

I know you are super busy, but when you find a couple of minutes to relax, I have a question you might find amusing/interesting to contemplate: By today's definition of Christianity, or by today's standards of what it means to be Christian, which outspoken, controversial critic of established religion should be considered more "culturally Christian": Richard Dawkins, or the historical Jesus of Nazareth?

3

Matthew,
What makes you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a critic of established religion?

4

I think it's fascinating that Dawkins would consider himself a cultural Christian while denying Christianity has had a positive impact on his culture.

As a cultural Christian his behavior, in fact his whole life, has been molded by Christianity. Yet he believes that religion and Christianity in particular are responsible for much of the evil in the world today. Therefore, any good he does must have come about as a result of a rejection of this culture, right? How can he respect himself and his enlightened brain unless he has rejected a culture which has caused so much evil? If he has rejected it, how can he consider himself a cultural Christian? I think it's a weird quote, too.

5

Waterboarding inflicts on its victims the terror of imminent death. And as with all torture techniques, it is, therefore, an inherently flawed method for gaining reliable information. In short, it doesn’t work.

Accepting for the moment that waterboarding is torture, we all keep hearing from supposed experts that torture doesn't work, that it isn't reliable, etc., but at the same time we are reading news stories about how it did work on Khalid Sheihk Mohammed and, more recently, Abu Zubaydah and how they broke in very short periods of time and provided a lot of useful information. There seems to me to be something of a disconnect between these experts and the facts on the ground; clearly in some cases it does work. So where does that leave us? It seems to me that opponents of torture are being disingenuous. For the most part, they rely on two arguments to make their case, the moral and utilitarian. Now the moral one is the difficult one because while it is possible to argue that torture is wrong, it is also possible to argue that morality requires us to put the rights of victims above the rights of murderers. On the other hand, the utilitarian argument is an easy one; if something doesn't work, what is the sense in using it? But, what happens when the utilitarian argument starts to fall apart? It appears that torture opponents are conceding that the moral argument is insufficient, because otherwise we wouldn't keep hearing definitive statements about the unreliability of torture even the evidence mounts that it does work.

6

10 tabs and videos watch out of 33.

Another solid performance. Impressive given you're working so hard.

7

smmtheory,

Perhaps Matthew could have worded that better. Jesus was not a critic of established religion, but of the religious establishment. There is a difference.

8

"This Week's Weirdest Quote by an Avowed Atheist: "[England] is historically a Christian country. I'm a cultural Christian in the same way many of my friends call themselves cultural Jews or cultural Muslims."

Now all we need is for Protestant Evangelicals to admit that they are culturally Catholics.

9

Patrick,
"Now all we need is for Protestant Evangelicals to admit that they are culturally Catholics."

Really? Other than Maryland, the colonies were overwhelmingly protestant.

10

Joe,

I doubt Kaplan shares any of your concerns regarding torture, as he believes our nation should not be guided by judeo-christians ethics, but should adopt an immoral/pagan attitude in our nations relations with the rest of his world. See his 2003 book, "Warrior Politics: Why Leadership Demands a Pagan Ethos"

11

Re: "This Week's Weirdest Quote by an Avowed Atheist"

Don't see the weird here. My wife and I are two atheists raising two little atheist girls. We have a Christmas tree, and our stockings are hung by the chimney with care. We are listening to Christmas music at the moment (instrumental, as we can do without the "round yon virgin" stuff), and the younger daughter skated in "Nutcracker on Ice" last week. We like Christian holidays, some Christian music, and much Christian morality. We just don't believe the supernatural stuff. Christians are cultural pagans, by the way. Yule logs and Christmas trees and December 25 are not originally Christian.

"I think it's fascinating that Dawkins would consider himself a cultural Christian while denying Christianity has had a positive impact on his culture."

I think it's fascinating that you believe Dawkins denies that Christianity has had a positive impact. He acknowledges that fact. He also acknowledges its negative impact. You should actually read Dawkins before you mischaracterize his positions.

12

Re: The Ten Nastiest Fish

My vote is for the Candiru. It can swim up your urethra or anus and lodge itself there. That is a bad thing for a fish to do.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Candir%C3%BA

13

"My vote is for the Candiru. It can swim up your urethra or anus and lodge itself there. That is a bad thing for a fish to do."

This must be proof that a loving Creator intelligently designed this world.

14

Smm,

What makes you believe that Jesus of Nazareth was a critic of established religion?

Jeff,

Perhaps Matthew could have worded that better. Jesus was not a critic of established religion, but of the religious establishment.

Thanks for the assist, Jeff.

But although Jesus criticized the religous establishment, he also went beyond that and was something of a religious revolutionary, or at least a radical innovator.

Old Testament Judaism was a covenant between Yahweh and the chosen people. Jesus' new paradigm was the New Covenant between God the father and the individual. He set himself up as a prophet with a new way of doing things vis-a-vis God.

Jd,

How can he respect himself and his enlightened brain unless he has rejected a culture which has caused so much evil? If he has rejected it, how can he consider himself a cultural Christian? I think it's a weird quote, too.

I haven't looked at Dawkins' books for a few months, so I don't remember everything he says about religion and about Christianity.

But I do remember that although he argues that belief in God is a delusion, he does make a lot of distinctions and generally refrains from painting religion with a broad brush.

Ucfengr,

I, as usual, agree with you.

However, I don't consider revulsion to torture to be a bad thing or to be some kind of namby-pamby weakness (not that you do, either). Torture is the ultimate weapon and the ultimate slippery slope, and should be reserved for the most extraordinary of circumstances.

If we never have to use it again, I would be very glad of it.

15

But although Jesus criticized the religous establishment, he also went beyond that and was something of a religious revolutionary, or at least a radical innovator.

Old Testament Judaism was a covenant between Yahweh and the chosen people. Jesus' new paradigm was the New Covenant between God the father and the individual. He set himself up as a prophet with a new way of doing things vis-a-vis God.

I'm not sure I understand completely what you are trying to communicate here. Perhaps it is just the odd semantic. Yes, the Old Testament was a covenant between God and his chosen people. Jesus was the fulfillment of that old covenant, as well as the being the sign of the new covenant. I guess in a manner of speaking, he did deliver a new paradigm, but I have to disagree that it makes him a radical innovator. I think the new paradigm was really just a distillation of the older paradigm.

I have to totally disagree with the last sentence though. I know it is a minor quibble from your viewpoint, but Jesus did not set himself up as anything. It was God that set him up for his role in the world.

16

I too find myself in agreement with you Ucfunger, as usual.

But i'd also like to say that Joe and others who agree with him (on waterboarding) have a fundamental misunderstanding of sin.

My thought on this can be contained within the book of James. For the sake of brevity, read it for yourself. James Chapter 1.

Basically we learn that God does test us but that he doesn't tempt us. Of course, to us it might look like the same exact thing, what's the difference?

God means it for good while Satan means it for evil.

Unbelievers usually do not understand this distinction, which is why we argue so often about murder vs killing. How can you believe in the death penalty and be pro-life?! is usually the charge.

Does the interrogator interrogate because it gives them pleasure to cause others discomfort and pain? Then it is sin. Does the state interrogate because it gives its citizenry pleasure to cause their enemies discomfort and pain? Then it is sin.

On the flip side, does the interrogator interrogate to save the lives of others and help his fellow man? Then it is not sin. Does the state interrogate because it wishes to save the lives of its citizenry? Then it is not sinful.

Those who equate actions done by the United States which happen to be identical to actions done by other nations such as Korea, or Nazi Germany, or Saddam's Iraq are relativists of the worst sort.

17

I think you've got the relativist thing turned around, baggi. An absolutists says: "Doing X is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances." A relativist says: "While doing X is usually wrong, it can be justified under some circumstances (such as to prevent a greater wrong, to achieve a good end)"

An absolutist might say, for instance, that staeling is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances. A relativist might say stealing is justified if one's family is starving to death.

An absolutist might also say that torture is always wrong. It is the relativist who would say that torture might be justified under certain circumstances.

18

I think you've got the relativist thing turned around, baggi. An absolutists says: "Doing X is always wrong, regardless of the circumstances." A relativist says: "While doing X is usually wrong, it can be justified under some circumstances (such as to prevent a greater wrong, to achieve a good end)"

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here, ex; are you trying to say that for the absolutist, intent doesn't matter? I think in that case, everybody is a relativist to some extent on just about every action. Can you think of any action that is always wrong, no matter what the circumstances? Even John McCain, one of the most vocal opponents of waterboarding, concedes that it would be appropriate during the "ticking nuke scenario". Does that make McCain a relativist on torture?

19

Baggi,

You sound like you are a believer in "situational ethics".

20

Speaking of situational ethics, it seems the guy Joe Carter's working for was seriously morally hampered when it came to his son who seems to have had a thing about torturing dogs.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/78241

And this after last week's revelation from Joe Conason about how Wayne Dumond was only the tip of the iceberg...

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/14/huckabee/index.html

21

Smm,

I guess in a manner of speaking, he did deliver a new paradigm, but I have to disagree that it makes him a radical innovator. I think the new paradigm was really just a distillation of the older paradigm.

And Dawkins rationalistic celebration of atheism and dismissal of religion is just the distillation of the 2,000 year old marriage of logos with monotheistic religion introduced by Jesus and Saint Paul.

22

As an ex-christian, I can see were the conclusion vis a vis Dawkins quote is coming from. If theist A were to follow the rituals of religion B, this would be considered shocking hypocrisy, by true beleivers (tm).

What the theist misses, is that Dawkins thinks its harmless nonsense (in this instance), and why cause upset for no good reason?

No "God of Atheism" is profaned by singing a few hallelujahs, and there is no Jesus to upset either. From Dawkins perspective, and mine, there is no problem or hypocrisy here. The problem, such as it is, is simply in the heads of those that take this stuff seriously.

23

ucfengr

Accepting for the moment that waterboarding is torture,

It is, nice of you to accept reality.

but at the same time we are reading news stories about how it did work on Khalid Sheihk Mohammed and, more recently, Abu Zubaydah and how they broke in very short periods of time and provided a lot of useful information. There seems to me to be something of a disconnect between these experts and the facts on the ground; clearly in some cases it does work.

This is hardly 'clear' unless you have access to the information Mohammed provided, when he provided it and the methods that was used on him. This would hardly be the first time a gov't agency distorted the facts to support a policy they want. This would hardly be the first time THIS ADMINISTRATION distorted the facts to hoodwinck the public into accepting its policies. These 'facts' are especially tempting to distortion since it is almost certain that it will be decades, if ever, before anyone without the highest security clearances will be able to evaluate these assertions.

There seems to me to be something of a disconnect between these experts and the facts on the ground; clearly in some cases it does work. So where does that leave us? It seems to me that opponents of torture are being disingenuous.

Fair is fair, I'll grant you that in theory there may be situations where torture works from a utilitarian perspective. This is less useful than you would have us believe. Almost a century ago socialism was all the rage. The logic seemed pretty air tight. Instead of having ten factories competiting against each other wouldn't it be more efficient if the gov't ran one huge factory and achieved the lowest cost? The problem with the idea was that while such situations may indeed exist one is assuming gov't agents are smart enough to properly recognize them and take advantage of them without wasting resources. Your above scenearo assumes that the gov't will 'torture wisely', only in those areas where the information to be gained is more valuable than the ethical problems. This assumption requires heroic faith since the torture evidence we have seen so far does not indicate a policy being conducted by masterminds but an amateur policy that is as influenced by as much petty sadism as anything else. The intelligence agencies have repeatedly been shown to be making massive blunders in evaluating intelligence or shaping intelligence to fit the policy desires of the White House. Couple that with the fact that in all areas there is almost no check and balance here. Torture decisions cannot be reviewed by either Congress or the Judicial branch in any way that will actually do much good.

So you have almost no roadblocks to 'bad torture' decisions, plenty of ways for gov't agents to cover up 'bad torture' decisions to dodge scrutiny and all the incentives in the world for abuse. Yet with all these negatives you would have us 'trust in gov't' that torture would only be used in those cases where information gained outweighs ethics violated?

On the negative, of course, is the public relations diaster such a policy has in a war that has to be fought mostly in the hearts and minds.

Even John McCain, one of the most vocal opponents of waterboarding, concedes that it would be appropriate during the "ticking nuke scenario". Does that make McCain a relativist on torture?

Perhaps but so what? The extraordinary scenario that might justify breaking a principle is hardly a justification for ditching the principle.

Now the moral one is the difficult one because while it is possible to argue that torture is wrong, it is also possible to argue that morality requires us to put the rights of victims above the rights of murderers.

But why should this matter? If the torture victim is a murderer then try him and punish him accordingly. If you really had the guts to confront this question you would weigh cases where the torture victim is not. Suppose the terrorist will not speak no matter what is done to him but he will be broken if he is made to witness his 9 year old son being tortured in front of him with the promise that the boy will be killed eventually? This administration has asserted they have the legal right to do that, really do that not just tell the prisoner they are going to do that. Do they? If not, why not?

jd
As a cultural Christian his behavior, in fact his whole life, has been molded by Christianity. Yet he believes that religion and Christianity in particular are responsible for much of the evil in the world today. Therefore...

You can't have your cake and eat it too. It's pretty tough to argue that Christianity is behind our culture yet only the good things. It seems like you're upset that Dawkins is trying to be balanced, giving credit to Christianity for things he finds positive.

Baggi
Does the interrogator interrogate because it gives them pleasure to cause others discomfort and pain? Then it is sin. Does the state interrogate because it gives its citizenry pleasure to cause their enemies discomfort and pain? Then it is sin.

So if I parked illegally but got no pleasure from it my parking ticket should be voided? What other laws should we make such hairsplitting distinctions over the motivation of the violators?

24

This is hardly 'clear' unless you have access to the information Mohammed provided, when he provided it and the methods that was used on him. This would hardly be the first time a gov't agency distorted the facts to support a policy they want.

If we abide by this standard, how can we even assert with any reliability that the US is waterboarding anybody? "THIS ADMINISTRATION" continues to insist that we don't torture prisoners and refuses to comment on specific interrogation techniques used.

This would hardly be the first time THIS ADMINISTRATION distorted the facts to hoodwinck the public into accepting its policies.

Yes I remember, "Bush lied, people died." Blah, blah, blah.

I'll grant you that in theory there may be situations where torture works from a utilitarian perspective.

There may be? "Nice of you to accept reality."

This is less useful than you would have us believe.

No, it is pretty darn useful actually. Once the utilitarian argument that "waterboarding never works" collapses, then you are left with the moral argument, and the moral argument isn't as clear cut. I think decent people can disagree with the moral argument against waterboarding; you may disagree, but so what.

If the torture victim is a murderer then try him and punish him accordingly.

You are confusing the interrogation of enemy combatants with the punishment of convicted criminals; they are not the same. The interrogation and detention of enemy combatants is a function President's authority as Commander in Chief; punishment of criminals, even war criminals is a function of the judiciary, though the executive does carry out the punishment.

On the negative, of course, is the public relations diaster such a policy has in a war that has to be fought mostly in the hearts and minds.

This is another one of those arguments that people blindly accept in spite of the evidence mounting against it. Germany and France both elected more pro-American leaders in their last elections and for all the talk of our policies creating more terrorists, these new terrorists have been surprisingly docile. It's been several years since there has been a successful terrorist attack the US or Europe and even the violence in Iraq has been lessening of late. You would think if we were really turning the "hearts and minds" against us, we would see an upward trend in violence; instead we are seeing the opposite. Six years ago, 19 terrorists were willing to sacrifice themselves to attack the US, now you can't even find one willing to shoot up a shopping mall during Christmas.

25

continued from 24:

So what you are left with is either our interrogation techniques are working so well that Al Queda can't even mount a minor attack in the US, or we really aren't turning "hearts and minds" against us; both of which argue for their continued use.

26

ucfengr

Why am I unsurprised to see this kind of talk from moral "christians"?

Torture is indefensible, especially if one is religious (I'm told), what with the whole "transcendent morality" y'all are plugged into.

The sane christians urgently need to get extremists like this dude back on the leash, these people give the decent among you a very bad rep.

27

Brian,

I am sorry to hear about your experience. I will be praying for you.

28

Yes I remember, "Bush lied, people died." Blah, blah, blah.

Wow, ucfengr, your concern for innocent human life is absolutely awe-inspiring and worthy of praise and respect. Not.

The statement quoted above is yet another reminder of exactly how clueless, uncaring, and morally retarded some so-called Christians really are. No wonder some of your kind praise natural disasters and the 9/11 attacks as the work of their God -- they have absolutely no moral compass to guide them out of their own brown fog!

I sincerely hope and pray that your God forgives you for making a good and decent religion look like a bastion of amoral stupidity. But given how your own holy text describes that God, I wouldn't expect much mercy from him.

29

oclarki writes:I am sorry to hear about your experience. I will be praying for you.

While I can appreciate the sentiment, and give you the benefit of the doubt with regard to your sincerity, can I ask what would be the point of prayer?

An omniscient and potent deity with a master plan forged in the fires that created time is hardly likely to change something because you or I ask. Just one of a million reasons why such a creature is logically absurd.

Thanks all the same, though:-)

30

ucfengr
If we abide by this standard, how can we even assert with any reliability that the US is waterboarding anybody? "THIS ADMINISTRATION" continues to insist that we don't torture prisoners and refuses to comment on specific interrogation techniques used.

We don't have to know if waterboarding is happening today to continue to support its status as torture.

Yes I remember, "Bush lied, people died." Blah, blah, blah.

I forgot, you're the one who asserted that Bush was 'amazingly honest'. Sorry if I neglected to accomodated your handicapped ability to detect reality.

No, it is pretty darn useful actually. Once the utilitarian argument that "waterboarding never works" collapses,

Actually that wasn't my argument. Like socialism, it's not that it can never work it is that in order for it to work more often than it fails requires making very dubious assumptions. It's not even that it never worked in some situations. If you ignore the cost side of the equation it's quite easy to cherry pick examples of either socialism or torture that appear to 'work' in the historical record.

You are confusing the interrogation of enemy combatants with the punishment of convicted criminals; they are not the same. The interrogation and detention of enemy combatants is a function President's authority as Commander in Chief; punishment of criminals, even war criminals is a function of the judiciary, though the executive does carry out the punishment.

Then why are you bringing the term 'murderers' into the discsussion if its only about 'enemies'?

This is another one of those arguments that people blindly accept in spite of the evidence mounting against it. Germany and France both elected more pro-American leaders in their last elections and for all the talk of our policies creating more terrorists, these new terrorists have been surprisingly docile.

Yawn, this is second only to the "You're forgetting about Poland" line from the 2004 election in terms of silliness.

It's been several years since there has been a successful terrorist attack the US or Europe and even the violence in Iraq has been lessening of late. You would think if we were really turning the "hearts and minds" against us, we would see an upward trend in violence; instead we are seeing the opposite.

This is what passes for 'analysis' among neocons these days. If the sky is blue it proves the policy has worked, if the sky is grey it proves the policy is working and needs more time.

Six years ago, 19 terrorists were willing to sacrifice themselves to attack the US, now you can't even find one willing to shoot up a shopping mall during Christmas.

So the entire 'War on Terror' which cost us nearly $1T, 2000+ lives and countless collateral deaths was over not even 20 people who didn't even survive the first 'battle' since they killed themselves as part of it? This idiocy is the reason why people like you need to be voted as much out of office as possible in the next election.

31

"ticketing time bomb in a suitcase", "commander in chief", "We're at war with Islamofascists", "you're either with us or against us", "they hate us because of our freedoms", "we're going to rid the world of evil", "fight them over there so we don't have to fight them over here..."

"the left hates George Bush because of his Christian values"

Blah Blah Blah......

32

Boonton wrote;

So if I parked illegally but got no pleasure from it my parking ticket should be voided? What other laws should we make such hairsplitting distinctions over the motivation of the violators?

I'm not sure what deriving pleasure from it, or not, has anything to do with it.

If you parked illegally to save a woman burning up in a building on fire, then yes, you shouldn't get a parking ticket.

33

Boonton, if you have an argument, make it, but don't expect me to respond to the big, steaming pile of insults and non-sequiturs you posted above.

Raging Bee, sorry, but I don't have time to trade insults with a half-wit.

34

"Raging Bee, sorry, but I don't have time to trade insults with a half-wit."

But didn't you just call Raging Bee a half-wit? Isn't that an insult? See, you have more time than you thought you did!

35

If you parked illegally to save a woman burning up in a building on fire, then yes, you shouldn't get a parking ticket.

So what if I torture the 9 year old son of someone who knows something about a terrorist plot in order to save several hundred people?

Your logic would seem to say I should get in no trouble at all since my motives were good. In fact, even if it turns out the person knew nothing and my torture of the innocent child didn't save anyone I still am in the clear? No? why not?

ucfengr
but don't expect me to respond to the big,

Wow, he is finally speechless! What do I win? More seriously, I don't expect you to respond because you can't.

36

Wow, he is finally speechless! What do I win?

Yes, Boonton, you have finally made a post that is so stupid and lacking in argument that even I don't want to waste time responding to it. Congrats, have a cookie.

37

Yep you got it ucfengr, there's no arguments at all against your 'positions'.

38

Yep you got it ucfengr, there's no arguments at all against your 'positions'.

Sure there are, you just haven't made them. Insults, snark, and non-sequiturs aren't arguments, Boonton.

39

Uncenger,

The left has worse cliches than the right.
"Bush lied People Died" is nothing compared to the ones I listed in Post 31....

40

Yeah, right -- ucfengr has PLENTY of time to spew obvious falsehoods on a wide variety of subjects; then he has time to tell us how little time he has to do what he's been doing; then he does even more of what he just said he doesn't have time to do.

Hey, if you don't have time to trade insults, by all means skip the insults and stick to substantive points. We won't stop you from doing that, nor will the insults be missed.

Funny how this sort of "master-debater" always seems to run out of time AFTER his arguments have been debunked...

41

ucfengr has PLENTY of time to spew obvious falsehoods on a wide variety of subjects

I'd love to see a few of these "obvious falsehoods" I have "spewed". How about listing a few of them?

42

JohnW--re: post 39

No offense, but I don't really read your posts anymore. I may glance at the ones you specifically address to me, but I generally don't bother replying to them. I find that you rarely have anything to say that is worth responding to. I have to admit that I am getting to that point with Raging Bee, and even Boonton; who I used to occasionally enjoy engaging. RB rarely bothers to make an argument, preferring instead to rely on faux outrage and arm waving. Boonton is getting the same way. Maybe I am getting old, but life's to short to get bogged down in this folly. I like a good debate as much as anybody here, but the people that argue for the other side just aren't all that good anymore.

43

Though JohnW, I must admit that RB's post about my "obvious falsehoods" did intrigue me. I'd like to see where I posted that the value of pi is 3.0 or the speed of light is 2.9 x 10^6 m/s or some other "obvious falsehood".

44

ucfengr,

I'm with you. Between the time I waste scrolling past Boonton's turgid and overwrought posts to the wasted effort of getting Raging Bee to answer a direct question, it's really like playing the junior varstiy. I'm all for declaring the war against these lightweights won how about you?

It's amazing, Boonton finds time to write hundreds of words a day on Evangelical Outpost, yet barely ekes out a post every few months on his own so-called blog. I guess when you are boring and uninteresting, your only recourse is to leech off a more popular and better writer. As for Raging Bee, it never ceases to amaze when people commenting on an explicitly Christian blog are shocked, shocked, to find people defending their ideas with Christian theology.

45

Re 42, no offense taken Uncenger.

Afterall, I'm not in your league...you truly are a "master debater".

46

Those two videos are good!!!

47

Afterall, I'm not in your league...you truly are a "master debater".

See, this is what I am talking about. Even your attempts at humor are lame. "Master debater" was mildly humorous in 7th grade, but it's been a long time since either of us was in junior high; more than enough time to come up with some new material, John.

48

I wish we had funny commenters too ucfengr. I mean the lameness of wahat passes for humor among many Christians is bad enough. It's only made worse when even the agnostic/athiest commenter are douches as well.

49

Boonton wrote;

So what if I torture the 9 year old son of someone who knows something about a terrorist plot in order to save several hundred people?

Is this lack of an answer your way of admitting that your previous question was answered?

Your logic would seem to say I should get in no trouble at all since my motives were good. In fact, even if it turns out the person knew nothing and my torture of the innocent child didn't save anyone I still am in the clear? No? why not?

Yeah, i'm not so sure where this whole trouble thing comes in. I'm speaking of sin. Go back and read what I wrote and you'll see.

So going back to your parking ticket, its sinful for a Christian to ignore the law. However, as Christ pointed out, sometimes its better to ignore the law, like healing people on the Sabbath.

C.S. Lewis did a good job of pointing this out when he said that we all become devils if we elevate anything to the highest thing. Sometime Justice has to give way to Mercy.

I'm perfectly fine with Christians paying their fine after saving a woman from a burning building because they parked illegaly in the process. But just because they pay a fine does not mean they sinned before the Lord.

As a matter of fact, if it turns out that the woman they saved was a murderer and deserving of death, they still havn't sinned in saving her. Why? Because they intended to do good.

As for little children, ive got four and if you ask them, they'll tell you I torture them every day by making them do their chores, picking up after themselves, etc. It's easy to "torture" a child, they aren't made of the same stuff as adults.

50

Masterful, Uncenger, truly masterful....

51

Boonton,

[Ucfengr said:] "This is another one of those arguments that people blindly accept in spite of the evidence mounting against it. Germany and France both elected more pro-American leaders in their last elections and for all the talk of our policies creating more terrorists, these new terrorists have been surprisingly docile."

[Boonton replied:] Yawn, this is second only to the "You're forgetting about Poland" line from the 2004 election in terms of silliness.

[Ucfengr said:] "It's been several years since there has been a successful terrorist attack the US or Europe and even the violence in Iraq has been lessening of late. You would think if we were really turning the 'hearts and minds' against us, we would see an upward trend in violence; instead we are seeing the opposite."

[Boonton replied:] This is what passes for 'analysis' among neocons these days. If the sky is blue it proves the policy has worked, if the sky is grey it proves the policy is working and needs more time.

[Ucfengr said:] "Six years ago, 19 terrorists were willing to sacrifice themselves to attack the US, now you can't even find one willing to shoot up a shopping mall during Christmas."

[Boonton replied:] So the entire 'War on Terror' which cost us nearly $1T, 2000+ lives and countless collateral deaths was over not even 20 people who didn't even survive the first 'battle' since they killed themselves as part of it? This idiocy is the reason why people like you need to be voted as much out of office as possible in the next election.

Ucfengr was wrong: only the last response can be fairly characterized as a non sequitur.

But all three responses on your part were highly unresponsive. Ucfengr made three strong points, and all you did was wave your hands and act surly. If you want Ucfengr to play with you, then make the effort to debate smartly and fairly. We all know that you know how to do it.

How about starting by re-reading what Ucfengr has already written -- in particular, the three quotes above. Address each of those three points in a way that shows you understand what he is saying, and then you will probably get a response from one of us that is more to your liking.

But if you really do that, if you really try to wrap your mind around what Ucf is saying, there is always the danger you might actually have to concede that he is not a total moron and is actually right about a couple of things. So maybe you're better off staying on the defensive and remaining in your intellectual cocoon. Good luck with that!

52

And Dawkins rationalistic celebration of atheism and dismissal of religion is just the distillation of the 2,000 year old marriage of logos with monotheistic religion introduced by Jesus and Saint Paul.

Perhaps it is due to my head-cold induced addle-patedness, or maybe just my lack of familiarity with logos, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. For the life of me, unless you are using a different meaning of distillation than I am, I don't see how you can distill atheism out of monotheism. It is like trying to make wine out of the grape skins.

53

Baggi

As for little children, ive got four and if you ask them, they'll tell you I torture them every day by making them do their chores, picking up after themselves, etc. It's easy to "torture" a child, they aren't made of the same stuff as adults.

Earlier you wrote:

Is this lack of an answer your way of admitting that your previous question was answered?

Lack of an answer? I asked a simple question, would it be ok to torture an innocent child if one reasonably believed this would 'save lives'? You respond by telling us kids sometimes think having to do chores is torture. Being cute like this doesn't do yourself justice because I can tell you're normally a thoughtful person as evidenced by the rest of your post.

What I asked is not uncommon. Many regimes have used the threat of torture on one's kids as a method to 'break' people who would otherwise have resisted being personally tortured. Most of us would consider this to be an unjust and wrong thing, even sinful yet you would have us adopt logic that would give our gov't our consent to do this in our name. Don't we have a right to expect you to be forthcoming on what exactly you are advocating here or are you going to act like ucfengr and run around the bush asking what's the difference between waterboarding a child and making him take swimming lessons?

Mat
But all three responses on your part were highly unresponsive. Ucfengr made three strong points, and all you did was wave your hands and act surly. If you want Ucfengr to play with you, then make the effort to debate smartly and fairly. We all know that you know how to do it.

OK

[Ucfengr said:] "This is another one of those arguments that people blindly accept in spite of the evidence mounting against it. Germany and France both elected more pro-American leaders in their last elections and for all the talk of our policies creating more terrorists, these new terrorists have been surprisingly docile."

Please show me how the use of torture on the part of the US has caused voters in Germany and France to elect people who are more 'pro-American' (or more likely people who are just less critical of America than they have been the last few years).

[Ucfengr said:] "It's been several years since there has been a successful terrorist attack the US or Europe and even the violence in Iraq has been lessening of late. You would think if we were really turning the 'hearts and minds' against us, we would see an upward trend in violence; instead we are seeing the opposite."

So the measure of a policy's success is to look around and see if a city has been destroyed recently? Essentially what ucfengr is saying is unless EVERYTHING has gone bad, one particular policy must be a net benefit. That's hardly an argument.

[Ucfengr said:] "Six years ago, 19 terrorists were willing to sacrifice themselves to attack the US, now you can't even find one willing to shoot up a shopping mall during Christmas."

And this has what to do with torture again? It is rather stunning that for all this talk about a massive bloc of Islamists, the actual number of terrorists seem to be very slim. Out of hundreds of millions of Muslims & the talk of a 'World War IV' by neocons that you would find a bit more in terms of attacks. The reality appears to be that Al Qaeda is a lot smaller than they appeared on 9/11 and they are more of a 'one hit wonder' than the vanguard of a massive force. There number of other explanations is getting less every day. How else can you account for the fact that it is REALLY easy for any small group of people to do a terrorist attack (the OK city Bombimg seems to have been done with 2-3 people & a few hundred dollars).

Ucfengr would imply this is due to our use of torture but this doesn't seem very likely IMO. Here's some problems:

1. While 9/11 required a somewhat sophisticated international network with cells that are vulnerable to being 'broken', most terrorist attacks don't. As Tim McVeigh demonstrated, it takes a handful of people and a few hundred dollars to pull of a pretty big one. While an excellent CIA ala the Bourne movies coupled with torture might break up the major terrorism cells it would hardly be able to stop attacks done by small numbers of highly motivated loners or micro-groups.

2. The Middle East is a pretty violent place & almost every country there has some type of dissidents who are violent despite the fact that most of those countries have gov't that deploy torture more liberally than the US probably ever would. Is it really plausible to believe Islamists are scared of our waterboarding so they don't shoot up shopping malls here BUT they will in Saudi Arabia or Egypt which use torture the way our politicians use campaign commercials?

3. Islamists are hardly a united group. Many have come to Iraq to fight each other as much as they have come to fight Americans or 'freedom'. Many aren't even Islamists as much as criminals who are trying to take over blocks or extract money and resources through kidnappings and killings.

So now that I addressed some of the points why don't you or ucfengr honestly address my points? How about the child-torture hypothetical? Or am I to take it 'bruch your teeth may be torture' is an honest counter argument? How about the fact that torture has generated horrible PR? Or does ucfengr's expertise in reading the political climate of France and Germany really counter that argument? How about the fact that the serious lack of checks and balances on gov't torture leaves it open to abuse and coverup by gov't agencies? So far the only argument I've ever seen ucfengr use against that was his assertion that Bush is a good guy.

54

Please show me how the use of torture on the part of the US has caused voters in Germany and France to elect people who are more 'pro-American' (or more likely people who are just less critical of America than they have been the last few years).

You missed the point, again. I didn't say torture was responsible for countries electing "less anti-American" leaders, I said that if we are alienating the world, why are nations that were very critical of us electing more pro-American leaders?

So the measure of a policy's success is to look around and see if a city has been destroyed recently?

You missed the point, again (note to self--develop a macro for this phrase). It's not that al Queda, et. al. can't destroy a city, it's that they can't even find people to shoot up a school or shopping mall. If our policies are "creating terrorists", where are they?

And this has what to do with torture again?

In 2001, when we weren't torturing terrorists, they managed to find 19 or so willing to sacrifice themselves in an attempt to decapitate our national leadership. Now after 6 years of torture creating all these new terrorists and alienating the world, they can't even find someone who will shout "Allah Ackbar" as they hold up a 7-11.

As Tim McVeigh demonstrated, it takes a handful of people and a few hundred dollars to pull of a pretty big one.

And yet, after 6 years of creating more terrorists through our "barbaric" policies, they haven't shown that they can even pull off an itty bitty one. Even when you don't completely miss the point, your arguments are not proving your points, they are proving mine.

55

It's been several years since there has been a successful terrorist attack the US or Europe...

Have you forgotten the bombings in Madrid and London? Obviously our actions in Iraq didn't manage to prevent those; so the whole "it's okay because we're preventing terrorist attacks" rationale falls flat.

It's not that al Queda, et. al. can't destroy a city, it's that they can't even find people to shoot up a school or shopping mall.

How do you know this? How can you be sure they haven't simply chosen not to attack anyone this year? How do you know the terrorists aren't rewarding Bush for overextending US forces and thus validating al Qaeda's strategy?

Also, if you insist on using the lack of a terrorist attack in a given year as "proof" of success, than all it will take is one such attack in another year to blow your "proof" away. You are, in effect, letting terrorists choose whether or not to justify your policy.

56

Boonton wrote;

Baggi

"As for little children, ive got four and if you ask them, they'll tell you I torture them every day by making them do their chores, picking up after themselves, etc. It's easy to "torture" a child, they aren't made of the same stuff as adults."

Earlier you wrote:

"Is this lack of an answer your way of admitting that your previous question was answered?"

Lack of an answer? I asked a simple question, would it be ok to torture an innocent child if one reasonably believed this would 'save lives'? You respond by telling us kids sometimes think having to do chores is torture. Being cute like this doesn't do yourself justice because I can tell you're normally a thoughtful person as evidenced by the rest of your post.

What I asked is not uncommon. Many regimes have used the threat of torture on one's kids as a method to 'break' people who would otherwise have resisted being personally tortured. Most of us would consider this to be an unjust and wrong thing, even sinful yet you would have us adopt logic that would give our gov't our consent to do this in our name. Don't we have a right to expect you to be forthcoming on what exactly you are advocating here or are you going to act like ucfengr and run around the bush asking what's the difference between waterboarding a child and making him take swimming lessons?

You didn't, "As a simple question" as you plead, instead, you've changed the subject. I answered your initial, dumb, question/analogy about getting a ticket for illegal parking.

Ok, so Baggi: 1 Boonton: 0

So now, because you've been answered, you've decided, instead of admitting you're wrong, you'll just keep asking questions.

So now your new question is even more silly than your initial question.

Would I support the torture of children to save millions of lives?

My response is, not possible. You don't have to torture children to get them to do things for you, they're children. If you spank them, they will cry and then do what you want them to do.

But you'd like to build this box, put us in your box that has only two possible answers, and then repeat, "I just asked a simple question."

Your question has been answered resoundingly.

Why havn't you answered my questions instead of asking questions yourself?

Pretty telling. Because you have nothing.

57

[RB] Have you forgotten the bombings in Madrid and London?

The Madrid bombings were in 2004 and the London in 2005. It is now for all intents and purposes 2008, so it has been more than two years since al Qaeda has staged a successful attack in Europe and more than six since they have been able to stage one in the US. In other words it has been several years (i.e. more than two) since AQ has been able to stage an attack in the US or Europe.

[RB] How do you know this? How can you be sure they haven't simply chosen not to attack anyone this year? How do you know the terrorists aren't rewarding Bush for overextending US forces and thus validating al Qaeda's strategy?

Yeah, that's it. JohnW, pay attention here because this is an excellent example of someone being funny, because only a complete moron could believe this tripe.

[RB] Also, if you insist on using the lack of a terrorist attack in a given year as "proof" of success, than all it will take is one such attack in another year to blow your "proof" away. You are, in effect, letting terrorists choose whether or not to justify your policy.

It sounds like you are assuming that the only thing preventing AQ from staging a significant terror attack is their unwillingness do so. I guess it's conceivable, but it doesn't make a lot of success. It makes you look like you are losing and nobody wants to back a loser. Getting your ass kicked, which is what AQ is suffering in Iraq, is not a good strategy; not fighting back is even worse.

[Boonton] So now that I addressed some of the points why don't you or ucfengr honestly address my points? How about the child-torture hypothetical?

See Matthew, yet another example of Boonton's non-sequiturs, he assumes that since I approve of the limited use of waterboarding, it follows that I must also approve of the torture of innocent children. I never used to think of him as an idiot, but I am starting to change my opinion.

58

It sounds like you are assuming that the only thing preventing AQ from staging a significant terror attack is their unwillingness do so. I guess it's conceivable, but it doesn't make a lot of success (success should read sense). It makes you look like you are losing and nobody wants to back a loser. Getting your ass kicked, which is what AQ is suffering in Iraq, is not a good strategy; not fighting back is even worse.

59

Uncenger,

Re Post 57

Masterful, but please stop your
baiting.

60

Baggi

So now your new question is even more silly than your initial question.

Care to explain how?

My response is, not possible. You don't have to torture children to get them to do things for you, they're children. If you spank them, they will cry and then do what you want them to do.

You're dodging the issue again. I've pointed out too many times now the purpose of torturing children is not to break the kids but to break their parents.

You have not answered the question but simply dodged it by trying to pretend it was something else. Very dishonest my friend. And you started out very strong on this thread. I guess ucfengr must have corrupted you. Speaking of which, I'll respond to him later today if work permits.

61

Boonton,

I doff my hat to you, sir. I challenged you, and you rose to the challenge. My faith in you has been rewarded and refreshed. Thank you!

Please show me how the use of torture on the part of the US has caused voters in Germany and France to elect people who are more 'pro-American' (or more likely people who are just less critical of America than they have been the last few years).

Well, if torture has helped prevent one or more 9-11 style attacks, or worse, then it has certainly helped everyone in the world avoid the violence of the attack(s) and the violence of the resulting counter-measures that we would have been forced to take in response.

And as a result of the world being a less violent, more civilized place than it otherwise would have been, most nations, including France and Germany, would be more inclined to view the U.S., its foreign policy, and its leaders more favorably.

But if the use of torture has not prevented any attacks, then it has nothing to do with any success on our part.

So the measure of a policy's success is to look around and see if a city has been destroyed recently? Essentially what ucfengr is saying is unless EVERYTHING has gone bad, one particular policy must be a net benefit. That's hardly an argument.

What I understood Ucf to be saying is that if we are witnessing positive trends in the War on Islamofascist Terror, then it is likely that we are generally pursuing a good set of policies, and it is unlikely that we are pursuing a counter-productive set of policies.

I'd say that is a very strong argument, one which requires a certain amount of analysis of the facts on the ground before one could fairly dismiss it (assuming one could dismiss it after weighing all the evidence).

The reality appears to be that Al Qaeda is a lot smaller than they appeared on 9/11 and they are more of a 'one hit wonder' than the vanguard of a massive force. There number of other explanations is getting less every day. How else can you account for the fact that it is REALLY easy for any small group of people to do a terrorist attack (the OK city Bombimg seems to have been done with 2-3 people & a few hundred dollars).

Ucfengr would imply this is due to our use of torture but this doesn't seem very likely IMO.

Ucf didn't imply anything of the sort.

Torture isn't winning the War on Islamofascist Terror. The war is being won on many fronts: military battles in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere around the globe; diplomatic campaigns; pro-democratic and anti-jihadi propaganda; spending a lot of money to spur trade and development and to influence allegiances.

Torture is just one weapon we've used very, very sparingly to obtain intelligence in a handful of situations. Its contribution to the global war is relatively infinitesimal.

If Al Qaeda is a one-hit wonder, it isn't because we've dissuaded anyone by scaring them with the prospect of torture. It's because we bombed the evil b--t--ds out of their sanctuaries in Afghanistan and then challenged them to take a high-profile stand in Iraq, where - whoops - they got their a--es handed to them on a silver platter. A crying shame, isn't it?

How about the child-torture hypothetical?

Torture of a child is never justified under any circumstances. There is never a good reason for it, ever.

How about the fact that torture has generated horrible PR?

If torture is used too much, then it should generate horrible PR, and we should pay the price for our failings.

If torture is used very, very sparingly and appropriately, then the bad PR will be minimal, and is just one of the associated costs we have to accept in exchange for the urgent actionable intelligence that we were trying to extract.

How about the fact that the serious lack of checks and balances on gov't torture leaves it open to abuse and coverup by gov't agencies?

Excellent point.

I agree with you that torture is a dangerous weapon to keep in our arsenal, more dangerous than a nuclear bomb even. Whatever checks and balances we can devise will be hard to impose and maintain. Torture should only be used under the most extreme circumstances, with great reluctance and a certain amount of regret.

Smmtheory,

[Matthew wrote:] And Dawkins' rationalistic celebration of atheism and dismissal of religion is just the distillation of the 2,000 year old marriage of logos with monotheistic religion introduced by Jesus and Saint Paul.

[Smm responded:] Perhaps it is due to my head-cold induced addle-patedness, or maybe just my lack of familiarity with logos, but I really don't understand what you are trying to say here. For the life of me, unless you are using a different meaning of distillation than I am, I don't see how you can distill atheism out of monotheism. It is like trying to make wine out of the grape skins.

Around the time that Christianity arose in the Roman empire, some Jewish theologians had been engaged for several generations in trying to merge Hellenistic Platonic philosophy with the traditions of Judaism.

Early Christian theologians did the same thing and were very successful at it, at least in a Darwinian sense of being fruitful and multiplying.

Fast forward about two thousand years, and you have post-Christian intellectuals like Dawkins and Hitchens using the same habits of mind that were once the trademark of the great church minds, such as Aquinas and Augustine.

Of course, Dawkins reaches very different conclusions than the doctors of the church, but that's because we know more about biology, geology, astronomy, and science in general. But the rational habits of thought, analysis, and debate have a long Christian pedigree. The atheists are part of an ancient Judeo-Christian tradition.

The distance between "God is Not Great" (by Hitchens) and, say, Erasmus is probably not nearly as great as the distance between St. Paul and the Pentateuch. So if Jesus the Nazarene is the "distillation", as you put it, of the Old Testament, then Richard Dawkins is likewise the distillation of Judeo-Christian respect for rational curiosity about the nature of God's creaton.

62

So...no one wants to talk about the candiru? It has real torture potential. Put your naked suspect in a pool of water with your candiru and give him beer. Inform him that when he urinates the fish will follow the stream right up the ol' urethra. Better than waterboarding!

63

So...no one wants to talk about the candiru?

What, and have the EPA and Greenpeace on our asses? No thanks.

64

Rob Ryan: 'I think it's fascinating that you believe Dawkins denies that Christianity has had a positive impact. He acknowledges that fact. He also acknowledges its negative impact. You should actually read Dawkins before you mischaracterize his positions.'

Rob, do you deny that Dawkins believes that the human race would be much better off if the 'meme' of religion didn't exist? On balance he thinks it is very bad and campaigns stridently against us believers.
Amazingly, he also denies that Stalin's [or Mao's] atheism had anything to do with their evil policies, despite the aggressive materialism in Communist thought and 1000s of churches destroyed in the USSR alone.
So he shows his prejudice and inconsistency in argument, and sheer ignorance of the 20thC history of atheism. He believes, against all evidence, that atheism is culturally positive - when he really only claims that the scientific method is very useful, a method pioneered by Christians..
Isn't it surprising that you have to borrow Christian traditions because your atheistic heroes have never created anything similar worth celebrating?
The Bible denies that there are real atheists, of course.
You suppress your instincts and hitch a cultural ride on the 'dangerous' faith of others, as you willingly admit.
Happy Christmas!

65

Matthew Goggins writes: The atheists are part of an ancient Judeo-Christian tradition.

The distance between "God is Not Great" (by Hitchens) and, say, Erasmus is probably not nearly as great as the distance between St. Paul and the Pentateuch. So if Jesus the Nazarene is the "distillation", as you put it, of the Old Testament, then Richard Dawkins is likewise the distillation of Judeo-Christian respect for rational curiosity about the nature of God's creaton.""

The errors in this are a legion of incoherence only study can erase.. Jesus as the Messiah was the fulfilment of the OT, quite a different concept. Even the Jews still await the Messiah. Paul always claimed he was Jewish, so how could be repudiate the Pentateuch? Erasmus was both a Catholic apologist and a rennaisance thinker.
The Greeks were not atheists, as St Paul is recorded as telling them.
The Rational Logos is inherent in the OT and the NT, not some Hellenistic import, though much effort has been expended on the opposite thesis..

As for Dawkins as a legitimate 'Christian' commentator on a 'creation' he firmly denies, this is laughable.
It is wrong to imply that Christian scientists don't have 'rational curiosity' about the world unless they are also evolutionary materialists like Dawkins.
OK, let's start again: 'In the beginning, God..'

66

Barrie, you have provided a target-rich environment. I might as well go in order.

"Rob, do you deny that Dawkins believes that the human race would be much better off if the 'meme' of religion didn't exist?"

No. I merely wanted to point out to jd that Dawkins acknowledges positive contributions of Christianity. Certainly he thinks it is presently an overall negative and that we should have outgrown it by now.

"Amazingly, he also denies that Stalin's [or Mao's] atheism had anything to do with their evil policies, despite the aggressive materialism in Communist thought and 1000s of churches destroyed in the USSR alone."

Atheism is per se the lack of a god-belief. You can't blame Stalin's program of consolidating power on atheism. He opposed the churches because he loved power. Perhaps he hated religion as well. Neither characteristic is married to atheism. You make a common error (or is it a deliberate misrepresentation?) among theists, that of broadening the definition of atheism. Interestingly, many theists attempt to narrow the definition when it suits their purposes.

"So he shows his prejudice and inconsistency in argument, and sheer ignorance of the 20thC history of atheism. He believes, against all evidence, that atheism is culturally positive - when he really only claims that the scientific method is very useful, a method pioneered by Christians.."

Wasn't Ibn al-Haytham a pioneer of the scientific method? Way ahead of the Europeans? Was he a Christian? Just asking.

"Isn't it surprising that you have to borrow Christian traditions because your atheistic heroes have never created anything similar worth celebrating?"

This is a strikingly ignorant remark on several levels. For one thing, one should not expect the lack of a god-belief to generate traditional celebrations. No god! Whoopee! Let's celebrate! For another, it seems to ignore the rather heavy borrowing by Christians from pagan traditions for the Easter, Halloween, and Christmas celebrations. In fact, the Christmas celebration at my house owes very little to Christianity. Gift-giving, the tree, food and music...these all predate Christianity. Is Christianity so barren it has to borrow from pagans? Who hitched the "cultural ride on the 'dangerous' faith" first?

And you have the nerve to offer Dawkins a history lesson!

Merry Christmas to you, Barrie. Even if I disagree with you about almost everything, I sincerely wish you a rich and satisfying holiday season. Perhaps that is one of several positives I have drawn at least in part from your faith: Love your neighbor.

67

Barrie,

I respectfully suggest that there are few, if any, errors in my comparison of Dawkins with Jesus. I do concede, though, the role and meaning of logos in early Christianity is open to a variety of interpretations, due to gaps in the historical records.

I would like to point out that I most certainly do not mean to imply that only atheists can be considered the rightful intellectual heirs of Jesus. That would be a ridiculous position, and I find it funny to even consider it.

All I'm saying is that Dawkins is not alien to Judeo-Christian tradition, he is part and parcel of it. If he be a source of error in your view, it is error that flows uninterrupted from the main tributaries of philosophy and history of Christian Europe. As I said last time, Dawkins has a lot more in common with Erasmus than Paul did with Moses, at least in my opinion. Please feel free to reach your own conclusions.

A very merry X-Mas to you and all!

68

Oh, I forgot to add that I agree with you 100% that Dawkins is not the Messiah -- although perhaps Chris Hitchens is the anti-christ ;)

69

The distance between "God is Not Great" (by Hitchens) and, say, Erasmus is probably not nearly as great as the distance between St. Paul and the Pentateuch. So if Jesus the Nazarene is the "distillation", as you put it, of the Old Testament, then Richard Dawkins is likewise the distillation of Judeo-Christian respect for rational curiosity about the nature of God's creaton.

Sorry, can't get there from here. I probably also wasn't clear enough in my message. I intended to say that the message (and by extension his teachings carried on through the church) of Jesus the Nazarene, were a distillation of the Old Testament. And in this sense, I mean distillation as in the purified essence of the Pentateuch and Judaism. St. Paul, being a Jew, would have had as much a foundation in the Pentateuch as did Jesus. And even though you might be sort of technically correct in saying that Dawkins message is a distillation of the Judeo-Christian respect for rational curiosity, it doesn't make sense to state that his focus is on the nature of God's creation in the same argument you're making that acknowledges he attempts to remove God from the creation equation.

70

Smmtheory,

Sorry, can't get there from here.

Well, you deserve credit for trying.

If you are still interested in following my argument, don't feel too discouraged. After all, where there is life, there is hope, my good man.

And in this sense, I mean distillation as in the purified essence of the Pentateuch and Judaism. St. Paul, being a Jew, would have had as much a foundation in the Pentateuch as did Jesus.

But of course, I don't deny the foundation, or even the distillation that you refer to. I merely assert two things: a similar foundation exists for Dawkins in the scriptures and traditions of the church; and the distance between St. Paul and his Jewish foundation is quite significant.

I'm not the least surprised that you disagree, especially with the second assertion. There's plenty of room for disagreement about these things.

And even though you might be sort of technically correct in saying that Dawkins message is a distillation of the Judeo-Christian respect for rational curiosity ...

Thank you.

... it doesn't make sense to state that his focus is on the nature of God's creation in the same argument you're making that acknowledges he attempts to remove God from the creation equation.

Paradoxical, yes, but not nonsensical.

The Bible took the many gods of the ancient world and reduced them (distilled them?) to the one Yahweh. Dawkins just took what seemed to him to be the next logical step, from one god to zero.

How did he come to his conclusions?

Because some orthodox Christians (Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and many others) with a driving curiosity sought to explore the glory of God and his handiwork and came up with some remarkable insights. Namely that God expresses his divine will in the workings of the cosmos not by some miraculous ongoing personal intervention and attention (as was typical of the myths of the Greek and Roman pantheons, for example); but rather through the realization of some apparently deterministic and self-sustaining simple mathematical laws of physical interaction, and, in Darwin's case, evolution through natural selection.

This was a revolutionary intellectual achievement that took place over three or four hundred years and which is still being worked out today by many thousands of scientific researchers.

Dawkins uses this foundation of Christian- (and Jewish- and Hindu- and Shinto- and secular- etc.) inspired research and knowledge to reach the same conclusion that the French physicist and mathematician Pierre Laplace reached two hundred years ago: "I had no need of that hypothesis." When the God hypothesis proves unnecessary, it is only a short step to discard with it altogether, and that is the step that Dawkins (and myself) chooses to take.

Charles Darwin's faith in Christ was so shaken by his scientific research that it affected him very personally and he experienced not a little despair and grief over it. Dawkins, on the other hand, embraces his own unbelief enthusiastically and celebrates what he believes to be the benefits of giving up the venerated myths of the Western world. But either way, the a-theism can be considered a distillation and even a refinement of the original mono-theism.

Thank you for the dialogue, Smm. I appreciate your open-mindedness and willingness to debate.

Happy Boxing Day,
Matthew

71

The Bible took the many gods of the ancient world and reduced them (distilled them?) to the one Yahweh. Dawkins just took what seemed to him to be the next logical step, from one god to zero.

Okay, I see what is causing all the erroneous understanding. The underlying premise is entirely faulty. The Bible did not take many gods of the ancient world and reduce them to the one Yahweh. The Bible never alluded to the existence of any more than one God, so the next logical step is not to reduce from one god to zero, but to acknowledge the steadfastness of the one God. Using an invalid interpretation of the Bible as a basis for further logical deduction does not result in solid logic.

Because some orthodox Christians (Galileo, Newton, Darwin, and many others) with a driving curiosity sought to explore the glory of God and his handiwork and came up with some remarkable insights. Namely that God expresses his divine will in the workings of the cosmos not by some miraculous ongoing personal intervention and attention (as was typical of the myths of the Greek and Roman pantheons, for example); but rather through the realization of some apparently deterministic and self-sustaining simple mathematical laws of physical interaction, and, in Darwin's case, evolution through natural selection.

I don't know why Darwin is included in this grouping. Darwin's work theorizing the process of evolution was specifically designed from the ground up to disprove the existence of God. Maybe he started as an orthodox Christian, but his theory was far from intended to be orthodox. At any rate, I can assure you that what you describe as a remarkable insight - namely, that God expresses his divine will in the workings of the cosmos not by some miraculous ongoing personal intervention and attention but rather through the realization of some apparently deterministic and self-sustaining simple mathematical laws of physical interaction - is not an insight at all, but is a stumbling block to true understanding. The physical operating laws of the universe are not even the tool(s) but the medium in which God expresses his divine will in the cosmos.