INTELLIGENT DESIGN:
does "infinity" exist?
I cannot help but feel that there are a number of
semantic misconceptions surrounding the concept
of "Intelligent Design" [ID]. The chief one being:
is ID scientific? And how do you define "science"?
The commonsense approach would be to say that
science is evidence based. Those of us who would
seek physical evidence of "design" would hope
that such evidence [if found] would [in principle] be
accepted as "scientific".
But it seems to me the debates surrounding ID
founder not on evidence but on one's philosophy of
science. For some, "science" is by definition natural-
istic and rejects the "supernatural" [a distinction
they themselves created], so on such a definition
any evidence of design cannot be science for that
very reason - the conclusion is built into the
definition. If they label something "supernatural"
it immediately makes it inadmissable as scientific
evidence. In a universe full of remarkable
implausabilities some are ruled in and others are
ruled out. The debate about "Creation Science" is
particularly acute in the USA where the state
education system is bound by the principle of
the separation of church and state.......and there
the debate is not science but the philosophy of
science. In short the presuppositions one starts
with determine the outcome - no wonder these
discussions are often debates of the deaf.
The concept of "Intelligent Design" stands or
falls on the principle of 'irreducible complexity'
[it is a falsifiable theory] and seeks to discover
biological systems [which can be studied objectively]
that cannot function in a precursor state [testable].
The classic example is the mousetrap comprising
spring, catch, trap and base plate; it cannot
function without all the components in place.
(It might have served a different function in a
precursor state - but the onus is on the naysayer
to state what that function was). A mousetrap
cannot evolve piece by piece - it is all or nothing -
hence 'irreducible complexity'. There are any
number of biological systems which fall into this
category.
Is it so unreasonable to ask about the origin of such
systems? At this stage no one is invoking God as
an explanation - we are merely raising biological
questions, but the materialist will invoke the
"slippery slope " argument. It is a paradigm they
are not prepared to explore.
Conversely, from a Christian perspective, the limit
in the creationist's argument is that even if we prove
the likelihood of a creator on material grounds, we are
still not able to identify conclusively who that Creator
is, not without special revelation anyway. So there is
only a limited mileage in the ID argument to start with.
But returning to the "Secular Fundamentalists" as
my chief target...someone will object and say that in
an infinite universe all sorts of improbable things will
happen. But it seems to me that one cannot
airily wave the word "infinity" over any given
problem and magic it away. You disallow one set
of improbabilities but admit this set (which
serves the same "god" function) because it fits your
preconceived ideas better - why is that?
Can I be provocative? Does "infinity" exist anyway?
Yes, I know it exists as a mathematical notion.
Yes, I know that space is infinite (albeit bounded). But
these are beside the point. Crucial to the materialists'
argument is not the size of the vacuum of space; what
matters to the materialist is matter [well, it would,
wouldn't it?] What matters is the stuff which makes
the world we inhabit and forms every biological sytem.
Is matter infinite? Well no it is not. According to the
Cornell University website the mass of the observable
universe has been calculated to be 25 billion galaxies
worth (and that includes dark matter). From this we
know that the universe will continue to expand - there
isn't enough mass (and so gravity) ever to draw
it back together. Indeed Cornell University go on to
say that the universe isn't big enough to contain
another Earth with another You! If we can quantify
the mass of the universe it is ipso facto not infinite and
does not contain the infinite possibilities you think it
should.
Given that - what is so unreasonable about flagging
up the "what if God does exist?" question?
Thursday, August 24, 2006
Sunday, August 20, 2006
T.I. CLOUGH & CO,
Solicitors, Bradford.
My first job.
When I left school in the Summer of 1976 I was nearly 19 years old.
My first job was as a trainee 'legal executive' with a firm of lawyers in
my hometown.
I worked in the criminal litigation department specialising in cases
being defended in 'Crown Court' - that is the 'superior' criminal court in
England & Wales (Scotland has a different legal system). And yes,
this is the court where the judge and barristers wear wigs and gowns!
I would read all the prosecution statements and write "a brief" giving a
synopsis of the case as I saw it. This would go to the barrister who
would defend our firm's client in court. I would also interview the
defendants and their witnesses. Sometimes I would instruct a private
detective to make enquiries on our behalf and sometimes I would do
the sleuthing myself - which I can assure you is no where near as
glamorous as it sounds! We covered cases right across the north of
England and the whole spectrum of serious crime.
When my cases came to court I would sit behind our barrister in the
well of the court and make notes on the evidence on their behalf. My
job was to ensure our side of the case flowed smoothly and that all
our witnesses were still on side; it is so embarrassing when your
own witness turns "hostile" once they get on the witness stand and
that's when the statement I took from them becomes critical in under-
mining their U-turn!
I spent four years doing this sort of work and I am grateful for the
insight it helped to give me into the ways of the world. To find oneself
mixing with the bad, the mad and the sad at the margins of our society
was a revelation.
I was once on a case out of town defending a guy on burglary charges
who, although he was out on bail, fully expected to be sent to prison
when his case concluded that afternoon. It was not unusual for our
clients to get themselves plastered in the local pub at lunchtime in these
circumstances. As it happened in this instance the judge was minded
to suspend his sentence. So there we were after the hearing with our
client breathing beery fumes over me explaining that he had no money
left in order to get home having spent every penny on booze. I gave him
some out of my own pocket. "I swear on my [sainted] mother's grave
I'll pay you back" he said. I told him not to worry about it. Experience
had taught me that sincerity is in inverse proportion to such declamations.
Of course I heard nothing more about it, until that is I bumped into
him a year or so later in our office reception. He was a habitual
burglar so that isn't altogether surprising. "I remember you", he said,
"I swear on my [sainted] mother's grave I'll pay you back [the money]".
Again I told him to forget it, "just write it off" I said. No, no he would
not hear of doing such a thing "I will pay you back". He never did.
I knew he never would. But isn't it curious? He could have accepted
my offer to 'write it off' - he didn't even have to say a thank you - all
he had to do was agree. But it is as if he was offered it as a free gift and
yet chose to steal it instead by making a promise he had no intention
of keeping. He could have walked away scot free but chose not to.
There is a parable in there somewhere.
Sometimes I'd be asked by other Christians how I felt defending
people who were obviously guilty. I would say that everyone is
entitled to have their day in court and put their side of the story.
Besides everyone is innocent until proven guilty, right? The
depressing thing was seeing the same old faces time after time,
recidivists doing "a life sentence on the installment plan!"
I quit T.I. Cloughs in 1980 and worked briefly as an oddjob man for
Harvestime Publishing before I started my nurse training. I had decided
that the law was not for me and I wanted to do something more
constructive with my working life - I know it sounds corny - but that's
why I moved into nursing as a career.
It is tempting to think crime is something that is always done by "the
criminal classes", the unsavoury element in society, the misfits and
antisocial types; not "decent" middle class people like ourselves.
I heard that T.I. Cloughs were closed down a couple of years ago after
the 'Serious Fraud Office' prosecuted some of the lawyers there. One of
them is still on the run and there is a warrant outstanding for his arrest.
How's that for irony?
Solicitors, Bradford.
My first job.
When I left school in the Summer of 1976 I was nearly 19 years old.
My first job was as a trainee 'legal executive' with a firm of lawyers in
my hometown.
I worked in the criminal litigation department specialising in cases
being defended in 'Crown Court' - that is the 'superior' criminal court in
England & Wales (Scotland has a different legal system). And yes,
this is the court where the judge and barristers wear wigs and gowns!
I would read all the prosecution statements and write "a brief" giving a
synopsis of the case as I saw it. This would go to the barrister who
would defend our firm's client in court. I would also interview the
defendants and their witnesses. Sometimes I would instruct a private
detective to make enquiries on our behalf and sometimes I would do
the sleuthing myself - which I can assure you is no where near as
glamorous as it sounds! We covered cases right across the north of
England and the whole spectrum of serious crime.
When my cases came to court I would sit behind our barrister in the
well of the court and make notes on the evidence on their behalf. My
job was to ensure our side of the case flowed smoothly and that all
our witnesses were still on side; it is so embarrassing when your
own witness turns "hostile" once they get on the witness stand and
that's when the statement I took from them becomes critical in under-
mining their U-turn!
I spent four years doing this sort of work and I am grateful for the
insight it helped to give me into the ways of the world. To find oneself
mixing with the bad, the mad and the sad at the margins of our society
was a revelation.
I was once on a case out of town defending a guy on burglary charges
who, although he was out on bail, fully expected to be sent to prison
when his case concluded that afternoon. It was not unusual for our
clients to get themselves plastered in the local pub at lunchtime in these
circumstances. As it happened in this instance the judge was minded
to suspend his sentence. So there we were after the hearing with our
client breathing beery fumes over me explaining that he had no money
left in order to get home having spent every penny on booze. I gave him
some out of my own pocket. "I swear on my [sainted] mother's grave
I'll pay you back" he said. I told him not to worry about it. Experience
had taught me that sincerity is in inverse proportion to such declamations.
Of course I heard nothing more about it, until that is I bumped into
him a year or so later in our office reception. He was a habitual
burglar so that isn't altogether surprising. "I remember you", he said,
"I swear on my [sainted] mother's grave I'll pay you back [the money]".
Again I told him to forget it, "just write it off" I said. No, no he would
not hear of doing such a thing "I will pay you back". He never did.
I knew he never would. But isn't it curious? He could have accepted
my offer to 'write it off' - he didn't even have to say a thank you - all
he had to do was agree. But it is as if he was offered it as a free gift and
yet chose to steal it instead by making a promise he had no intention
of keeping. He could have walked away scot free but chose not to.
There is a parable in there somewhere.
Sometimes I'd be asked by other Christians how I felt defending
people who were obviously guilty. I would say that everyone is
entitled to have their day in court and put their side of the story.
Besides everyone is innocent until proven guilty, right? The
depressing thing was seeing the same old faces time after time,
recidivists doing "a life sentence on the installment plan!"
I quit T.I. Cloughs in 1980 and worked briefly as an oddjob man for
Harvestime Publishing before I started my nurse training. I had decided
that the law was not for me and I wanted to do something more
constructive with my working life - I know it sounds corny - but that's
why I moved into nursing as a career.
It is tempting to think crime is something that is always done by "the
criminal classes", the unsavoury element in society, the misfits and
antisocial types; not "decent" middle class people like ourselves.
I heard that T.I. Cloughs were closed down a couple of years ago after
the 'Serious Fraud Office' prosecuted some of the lawyers there. One of
them is still on the run and there is a warrant outstanding for his arrest.
How's that for irony?
Saturday, August 12, 2006
The Path of Brighteousness.
Richard Dawkins coined the term "bright"
as a noun to describe those people who have
a naturalistic world view; perhaps he was
also alluding to "The Enlightenment" as his
source of inspiration, one which denies the
existence of the spiritual.
Brights reading this blog will have already
concluded that I am a "dull" because I don't
buy into the reductionist interpretation of
life.But before any brights verbally lynch me
let me flesh out where I am coming from, I
don't mind being insulted provided you get
your facts right!
As a Christian (and one who works in a
science based field)I have no need necessarily
to deny the naturalistic description of the
Cosmos. After all, all truth is God's truth.
The bright's worldview may be "the truth and
nothing but the truth" but I don't believe
for one minute that it is "the whole truth"!
Nor do I accept that to explain something is
the same as explaining it away. To allude to
CS Lewis, Richard Dawkins and all the other
brights 'describe a city and think they've
described the world!'
In turn I will, no doubt, be called a Creation-
ist and a Christian Fundamentalist. Guilty as
charged. I do believe God created the cosmos so
that would make me a creationist, wouldn't it?
(Although "creationist" has now acquired
connotations of "Young Earth Creationism"
which I do not buy into!) I do believe
in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith so I must be a fundamentalist; which is
what that phrase originally meant in the early
20th Century. However I'm not altogether happy
with some of the baggage both these appellations
now bring in tow. Even before the word "fundament-
alist" became associated with terrorism I was
already more than a little uneasy about the anti-
intellectual connotations it brought with it.
As if this wasn't bad enough "Fundamentalism"
has also since come to require an acceptance
of a Pre-millennialist interpretation of the
Bible. For what it is worth I, and many like
me, are amillennialist. This will seem an
esoteric quibble until one grasps that upon
this millennial [kingdom] question our under-
standing of the nature of The Kingdom of God
turns. Amillennialism as a term is a misnomer
because those who hold to it believe that the
Kingdom of God was realised by Jesus (realised
in the sense of made a reality, albeit yet to
come in all its fulness when Christ returns).
The premillennialists believe that the Kingdom
has yet to come. To cut to the chase this means
that a significant constituency within this
group called 'dispensationlists' have a
particular interpretation of the "End Times"
[which effectively means an interest in
'conspiracy theories'] and an exalted role for
the modern state of Israel which has major
implications for how they interpret the middle
eastern conflict. 'Dispensationalism' has a
disproportionate influence upon the church in
the USA. I do not share their convictions on
these issues and I do share some of Dawkins
reservations about the role religion plays in
fuelling violence; though I believe the issue
is human nature not religion per se (because
people will always find a host of excuses for
first despising and then seeking to destroy
other people): the secular ideologies have
blood on their hands too! Murder is certainly
nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus, because
The Kingdom Jesus founded cannot be advanced by
the bullet or the bomb, indeed such methods are
fundamentally antithetical to its nature.
To conclude; the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson
describes amillennialism as "the end time
apostasy" no less! So I'm not convinced that
the fundamentalists Dawkins despises would
recognise me as one of their own, even if
Dawkins would!
So am I a fundamentalist or not? And am I a bright or a dull?
And are people that easily pigeonholed anyway?
It's a funny old world isn't it?
tagline: Dawkins. Fundamentalism. Reductionism.
Bright. Naturalism. versus. The Bible. Philosophy.
Religion. Science. Pat Robertson. Calendar of Doom.
Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Tele-evangelism.
Tele-evangelist. Creation. Secularism. Dull. New.
Premillennialism. Amillennialism. Postmillennialism. Realised
Millennialism. Christian Counter Culture. Church. State. Israel.
Morality. Grace. Dispensation. Dispensationalism. Theocracy.
Theonomy. Eschatology. Eschatalogical. End Times. Left Behind.
Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion.
postscript for postmillennialism! This theology
suggests that there is to be a glorious 'church
age' establishing the kingdom of God on Earth
after which Jesus will return. In its brashest
form this is also known as "Dominion" or
"Reconstructionist" theology. In my view, these
have a theocratic political agenda which by its
very nature stresses moralism as its driving
force rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
They also stress raw political power as a means
to bring in the kingdom and I suspect that this
too is antithetical to Jesus' Gospel message.
Richard Dawkins coined the term "bright"
as a noun to describe those people who have
a naturalistic world view; perhaps he was
also alluding to "The Enlightenment" as his
source of inspiration, one which denies the
existence of the spiritual.
Brights reading this blog will have already
concluded that I am a "dull" because I don't
buy into the reductionist interpretation of
life.But before any brights verbally lynch me
let me flesh out where I am coming from, I
don't mind being insulted provided you get
your facts right!
As a Christian (and one who works in a
science based field)I have no need necessarily
to deny the naturalistic description of the
Cosmos. After all, all truth is God's truth.
The bright's worldview may be "the truth and
nothing but the truth" but I don't believe
for one minute that it is "the whole truth"!
Nor do I accept that to explain something is
the same as explaining it away. To allude to
CS Lewis, Richard Dawkins and all the other
brights 'describe a city and think they've
described the world!'
In turn I will, no doubt, be called a Creation-
ist and a Christian Fundamentalist. Guilty as
charged. I do believe God created the cosmos so
that would make me a creationist, wouldn't it?
(Although "creationist" has now acquired
connotations of "Young Earth Creationism"
which I do not buy into!) I do believe
in the fundamental doctrines of the Christian
faith so I must be a fundamentalist; which is
what that phrase originally meant in the early
20th Century. However I'm not altogether happy
with some of the baggage both these appellations
now bring in tow. Even before the word "fundament-
alist" became associated with terrorism I was
already more than a little uneasy about the anti-
intellectual connotations it brought with it.
As if this wasn't bad enough "Fundamentalism"
has also since come to require an acceptance
of a Pre-millennialist interpretation of the
Bible. For what it is worth I, and many like
me, are amillennialist. This will seem an
esoteric quibble until one grasps that upon
this millennial [kingdom] question our under-
standing of the nature of The Kingdom of God
turns. Amillennialism as a term is a misnomer
because those who hold to it believe that the
Kingdom of God was realised by Jesus (realised
in the sense of made a reality, albeit yet to
come in all its fulness when Christ returns).
The premillennialists believe that the Kingdom
has yet to come. To cut to the chase this means
that a significant constituency within this
group called 'dispensationlists' have a
particular interpretation of the "End Times"
[which effectively means an interest in
'conspiracy theories'] and an exalted role for
the modern state of Israel which has major
implications for how they interpret the middle
eastern conflict. 'Dispensationalism' has a
disproportionate influence upon the church in
the USA. I do not share their convictions on
these issues and I do share some of Dawkins
reservations about the role religion plays in
fuelling violence; though I believe the issue
is human nature not religion per se (because
people will always find a host of excuses for
first despising and then seeking to destroy
other people): the secular ideologies have
blood on their hands too! Murder is certainly
nothing to do with the Gospel of Jesus, because
The Kingdom Jesus founded cannot be advanced by
the bullet or the bomb, indeed such methods are
fundamentally antithetical to its nature.
To conclude; the tele-evangelist Pat Robertson
describes amillennialism as "the end time
apostasy" no less! So I'm not convinced that
the fundamentalists Dawkins despises would
recognise me as one of their own, even if
Dawkins would!
So am I a fundamentalist or not? And am I a bright or a dull?
And are people that easily pigeonholed anyway?
It's a funny old world isn't it?
tagline: Dawkins. Fundamentalism. Reductionism.
Bright. Naturalism. versus. The Bible. Philosophy.
Religion. Science. Pat Robertson. Calendar of Doom.
Evangelical. Evangelicalism. Tele-evangelism.
Tele-evangelist. Creation. Secularism. Dull. New.
Premillennialism. Amillennialism. Postmillennialism. Realised
Millennialism. Christian Counter Culture. Church. State. Israel.
Morality. Grace. Dispensation. Dispensationalism. Theocracy.
Theonomy. Eschatology. Eschatalogical. End Times. Left Behind.
Richard Dawkins. The God Delusion.
postscript for postmillennialism! This theology
suggests that there is to be a glorious 'church
age' establishing the kingdom of God on Earth
after which Jesus will return. In its brashest
form this is also known as "Dominion" or
"Reconstructionist" theology. In my view, these
have a theocratic political agenda which by its
very nature stresses moralism as its driving
force rather than the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
They also stress raw political power as a means
to bring in the kingdom and I suspect that this
too is antithetical to Jesus' Gospel message.
Sunday, August 06, 2006
Dick Lucas, The Rector Emeritus,
St Helen's Bishopsgate, London.
Dick Lucas became the rector of St Helen's when it
was a moribund church in the early 1960's. Located in
the heart of the financial district in London the church
established a ministry reaching out to those who
worked in "The Square Mile". Over the following
decades the congregation grew and now has a sizeable
student work. In recent years St Helen's has started to
plant a number of churches in the London area and
continues to support Gospel work in the UK and
overseas. Founded on the conviction that when the
Bible is taught God's Word is heard, Dick was instrumental
in reviving the concept of "expository preaching"; in
fact the satirical website "Ship of Fools" described Dick
as 'the Pope of evangelical preachers"! I have benefitted
enormously from the ministry of the St Helen's team
over the 15 years I've been a member there.
Dick, who turned 80 last year, retired as rector a few
years ago but continues to do work for "Proclamation
Trust" and is a guest preacher at a number of evangelical
events around the world.
I heard a story about Dick: after he retired he started
attending an independent evangelical church near his home
(no doubt to give the new rector some elbow room). One
morning at this church one of the deacons, trying to suss
out where this Anglican clergyman fitted into the grand
scheme of things, quizzed him on the conferences he had
attended recently to gauge just how "sound" he was. [In some
circles the term 'anglican' and 'apostate' are virtually
synonymous!] Dick clearly impressed the deacon with the
range of "reformed" conferences he had been to and the
deacon was mightily reassured about the newcomer as a
result. Dick commented afterwards, "I didn't have the heart
to tell him that I hadn't just attended these conferences but
preached at them!"
This August - while our current rector takes a well earned
Summer holiday - Dick will be preaching each Sunday
morning on the theme of "Words of Comfort on Knowing
God". If you want to hear him in person our church is a
'stones throw' from "The Gherkin" in the heart of The City
in London and our morning service starts at 10:15am
[though as of September this will change to 10:30am].
Details can be found at http://www.st-helens.org.uk/ not just
for our Sunday services but also all the mid-week meetings
including the lunchtime services.
Alternatively talks can be obtained or downloaded from
St Helen's Media at http://www.shmedia.org.uk/
St Helen's Bishopsgate, London.
Dick Lucas became the rector of St Helen's when it
was a moribund church in the early 1960's. Located in
the heart of the financial district in London the church
established a ministry reaching out to those who
worked in "The Square Mile". Over the following
decades the congregation grew and now has a sizeable
student work. In recent years St Helen's has started to
plant a number of churches in the London area and
continues to support Gospel work in the UK and
overseas. Founded on the conviction that when the
Bible is taught God's Word is heard, Dick was instrumental
in reviving the concept of "expository preaching"; in
fact the satirical website "Ship of Fools" described Dick
as 'the Pope of evangelical preachers"! I have benefitted
enormously from the ministry of the St Helen's team
over the 15 years I've been a member there.
Dick, who turned 80 last year, retired as rector a few
years ago but continues to do work for "Proclamation
Trust" and is a guest preacher at a number of evangelical
events around the world.
I heard a story about Dick: after he retired he started
attending an independent evangelical church near his home
(no doubt to give the new rector some elbow room). One
morning at this church one of the deacons, trying to suss
out where this Anglican clergyman fitted into the grand
scheme of things, quizzed him on the conferences he had
attended recently to gauge just how "sound" he was. [In some
circles the term 'anglican' and 'apostate' are virtually
synonymous!] Dick clearly impressed the deacon with the
range of "reformed" conferences he had been to and the
deacon was mightily reassured about the newcomer as a
result. Dick commented afterwards, "I didn't have the heart
to tell him that I hadn't just attended these conferences but
preached at them!"
This August - while our current rector takes a well earned
Summer holiday - Dick will be preaching each Sunday
morning on the theme of "Words of Comfort on Knowing
God". If you want to hear him in person our church is a
'stones throw' from "The Gherkin" in the heart of The City
in London and our morning service starts at 10:15am
[though as of September this will change to 10:30am].
Details can be found at http://www.st-helens.org.uk/ not just
for our Sunday services but also all the mid-week meetings
including the lunchtime services.
Alternatively talks can be obtained or downloaded from
St Helen's Media at http://www.shmedia.org.uk/
Tuesday, August 01, 2006
BERTRAND RUSSELL on
"The Conscience of Savages!"
August 2006's thought from my Agnostic Calendar is;
"Then you have to say one or other of two things.
Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of
mankind.....which happens to include yourself - or
He deliberately says things not true in talking to
the consciences of savages."
Bertrand Russell. "A Debate on the Existence of God"
(1948) in [sic]
Bertie doesn't seem to have really grasped the issue here.
God has spoken to all people - what they then do with that
revelation is the point of contention. We have already covered
some of this ground back in May's "Calendar of Doom" with
Carl Sagan so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice it to say
that the people Bertie calls savages are made in God's image
and enjoy His blessings and His general revelation.
As a Christian I do not expect less of "the savage" than I do
of an urbane European philosopher! And as a Christian I do not
expect more from the latter either. Indeed one might have thought
that Bertie would have learnt something from his own experience; in
his earlier career he professed some less than savoury opinions on
race and eugenics - in fairness that was a fairly common failing with
many such early twentieth century philosophers.
The point is; Bertie is uncomprehending of the possibility that
something has gone wrong at our end of the chain of communication
with God and we are morally responsible for that. [Think about this
issue from the perspective of International Law and cross cultural
concepts of justice - don't get too hung up on the cant of ivory tower
philosophers]. When people justify brutality to their own
moral satisfaction (in Auschwitz, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia,
London, New York, Madrid, Abu Gharaib, Iraq, Beirut - any point of
the compass you care to name in fact!) does Bertrand Russell really
believe that there is nothing wrong with human consciences? Well, on
the strength of this quote apparently so..............................................
tagline; Calendar of Doom.
"The Conscience of Savages!"
August 2006's thought from my Agnostic Calendar is;
"Then you have to say one or other of two things.
Either God only speaks to a very small percentage of
mankind.....which happens to include yourself - or
He deliberately says things not true in talking to
the consciences of savages."
Bertrand Russell. "A Debate on the Existence of God"
(1948) in [sic]
Bertie doesn't seem to have really grasped the issue here.
God has spoken to all people - what they then do with that
revelation is the point of contention. We have already covered
some of this ground back in May's "Calendar of Doom" with
Carl Sagan so I won't repeat myself here. Suffice it to say
that the people Bertie calls savages are made in God's image
and enjoy His blessings and His general revelation.
As a Christian I do not expect less of "the savage" than I do
of an urbane European philosopher! And as a Christian I do not
expect more from the latter either. Indeed one might have thought
that Bertie would have learnt something from his own experience; in
his earlier career he professed some less than savoury opinions on
race and eugenics - in fairness that was a fairly common failing with
many such early twentieth century philosophers.
The point is; Bertie is uncomprehending of the possibility that
something has gone wrong at our end of the chain of communication
with God and we are morally responsible for that. [Think about this
issue from the perspective of International Law and cross cultural
concepts of justice - don't get too hung up on the cant of ivory tower
philosophers]. When people justify brutality to their own
moral satisfaction (in Auschwitz, Cambodia, Rwanda, Darfur, Bosnia,
London, New York, Madrid, Abu Gharaib, Iraq, Beirut - any point of
the compass you care to name in fact!) does Bertrand Russell really
believe that there is nothing wrong with human consciences? Well, on
the strength of this quote apparently so..............................................
tagline; Calendar of Doom.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)