Why I have stopped participating in religous blog discussions

To those of you who have been used in the past to my comments on various blogs for which religious belief is at the heart, I have decided that it serves so little purpose as to be a waste of time.  Most of the mainstream blogs are close knit communities of likeminded belevers, who use these blogs to reassure themselves of their faith.  They usually only welcome 'civilised' non-believers as guests in order to reinforce their own sense of belonging - It's harder to remain cohesive unless there are 'outsiders' to fend off. 

Too many times when atheists have commented and produced strong arguments against what they see as illogical or unsustainable views, the faithful band together and become ever more illogical and fervent in defending the undefendable.

However, my participation has resulted in some helpful  (to me) outcomes;

• I am even better informed about religious belief in general, and the various forms of Christianity in particular.
• I think I have a clearer understanding of what it is that makes many people more prone to belief in supernatural cause/influence/purpose
• I have gained a greater understanding and acceptance of what it is to be a Humanist
• I am convinced that there is no higher purpose to life.  This is all there is. And it no longer troubles me

Mike Behe and Michael Reiss debate ID

This link is to the audio recording on Premier Christian Radio. I was curious to know if Mike Behe would say anything new on his recent UK tour. 
In this respect I found the debate beyween Mike Behe and Michael Reiss in Scotland this week particularly enlightening.  I have to say that after hearing it I was even less impressed by the argument for I.D. than I was beforehand.  Ironically this was in large part because he was debating not with a secularist, but with a very sincere Christian.  Thus the 'well he would say that wouldn't he' type defence would not work. 

In fact Michael Reiss makes a very good case for there being no need to even go down the I.D. road, for belief in God as the creator does not require this kind of limited view.  To me the whole I.D. idea seems to be counter-productive - particularly as many 'prrofs' have been proven over and over to be fundamentally flawed.  Conversely the supposed arguments against Evolution can so easily be refuted.

I do hope for the future health of the Christian religion that this gimmicky I.D. idea gets consigned to history sooner rather than later.  It's a silly notion that may sell books and make some people feel good about themselves, but ultimately just takes many gullible people down a dead end.

Does God exist - 2 - The Cosmological Argument

Why does anything exist? - why something rather than nothing? The argument is that unless God exists, the question is unanswerable. If the Universe had a beginning, who created the Universe if not God? Human experience informs us that something can't come out of nothing. What we need, it seems, is a cause which itself has no cause; and God fits the bill.

Claims and counterclaims have been made since the idea was first postulated. Bertrand Russell said something simple but profound:

"...the Universe is just there, and that's all".

Why cannot the Universe be infinite, regardless of whether we can comprehend that. We are after all just short lived carbon life forms living precariously on a small planet revolving around an unremarkable star.

We seem to be tantalisingly close to a scientific explanation for the origin of our Universe and the apparent "Big Bang" that started it all. But let's suppose that humankind is not able to fully understand the origin of the Universe, before our brief existence (In Cosmic terms) is snuffed out by our dying Sun. The fact that we do not understand something is not sufficient cause to say "God did it".

Let's imagine that every day my cat sees me taking food from the cupboard to feed him, but is never there when I replenish the cupboard. My cat has no idea why everything always comes from that cupboard or why it is there, but he knows that it does, he knows that it always has done, and has no reason to doubt that it always will. He has no facility to understand the process. But might it not seem reasonable to him that a God lives in the cupboard, a God which always provides, and apparently from nothing? There is a perfectly logical process, but he is mentally unequipped to understand it. As far as he is concerned I am the one who acts as an intercessor (I know how to open a can and he marvels at that!), and therefore perhaps I am the equivalent to his High Priest, if you like.

At a different scale and level of complexity, doesn't the God that humans assume exists fit the same mould? OK, so this is a gross oversimplification, but surely the basic prionciple is the same.

Does God exist? - (1) The Ontological Argument

Christian apologists are fond of "proving" that God exists using logic or philosophical arguments. Are the proofs mere word games, or is there more to them? One of the oldest widely disseminated arguments is the so called "Ontological" argument. In the late 11th Century St Anselm argued that we can deduce the existence of God from the mere idea of God. Just by thinking about what God is we can deduce that He exists. St Anselm's argument was:

By definition God is greater than which none can be conceived.
God can be conceived of as just an idea, or as really existing.
It is greater to exist than not to exist.
Therefore, God must exist.

Over time various philosphers have exposed the flaws in this argument.
Initially Anselm's contemporary, the monk Gaunilo, objected that logically one could prove anything exists by this argument. St Anselm's response was that this argument could only be applied to God, because only He could be perfect and unique.

But it was not until Emmanual Kant in the late 18th Century that the Ontological argument appears to be have been conclusively rebutted. Kant showed that the argument wrongly assumes that existence is a property. According to St Anselm the concept "God" contains contains the idea of existence. So the statement "God does not exist is a contradiction in terms. Therefore he must exist. But Kant claimed that existence does not add anything to, or define, a concept. To say something exists merely means that some object corresponds to the concept. Existence is not the same as a concept. Therefore it is not true that "God exists" must be true.

However, this argument is still used today in various forms, and with further justifications and explanations.

In future posts I'll summarize further arguments. Next will be the "Cosmological Argument"

Charles Kingsley on the fossil record

I've just recalled a quote by 19th century writer Charles Kingsley, made when discussing his doubt that God made the World complete with fossils that appear to predate the Creation. He said:

"I cannot believe that God has written on the rocks one enormous and superfluous lie"

I find myself ever more perplexed by the creationist view of the World. How can they sustain their belief, when every argument they produce can so easily be refuted, and when the much simpler rational solution is so blindingly apparent? I find it scary that people can be so intent on self delusion. Of what else are they capable?
I do acknowledge, however, that most Christians do not subscribe to such a literal view.

New dinosaur discovery solves evolutionary bird puzzle

From a news report today:
"A newly discovered fossil has shed light on why a group of dinosaurs looks like birds, say scientists. Haplocheirus Sollers may not be as charismatic as T. rex or as agile as a pterodactyl but it's thought to solve a long standing puzzle. Researchers believe its short arms and large claw show how bird-like dinosaurs evolved independently of birds."

Those who promote "Intelligent Design" are keen to point to apparent gaps in fossil records, and a lack of evidence of transitional creatures. This seems to ignore the fact that new fossils are being found all the time, and each time something like this is found it fills further gaps.

By contrast, I am not aware of any new discoveries which add weight to the argument for Intelligent Design. Any suggestions?