Why have humanists suddenly become so angry and intolerant?
They seem to hate with a passion anything and everything concerned with religion and belief in supernatural beings. They hate faith schools. They hate religious broadcasting. They just seem to hate, which is remarkable, considering a humanist is meant to be one who is concerned with the interests and welfare of humans.
They don’t tend to ignore Christmas as a matter of principle. Perhaps they take comfort in Yule being a pagan festival, but whoops, there’s that religion again: you just cannot get away from it. It’s no wonder that some humanists are obsessed to the point that they propose and promote ridiculous ideas.
Ariane Sherine, she of the ‘Atheist Bus Campaign’, is now using children to get at religious people.
As Richard Dawkins states, “Nobody would seriously describe a tiny child as a ‘Marxist child’ or an ‘Anarchist child’ or a ‘Post-modernist child’. Yet children are routinely labelled with the religion of their parents. We need to encourage people to think carefully before labelling any child too young to know their own opinions, and our adverts will help to do that.”
Another 'Humanist' anti-religion poster.
I agree that people shouldn’t just accept whatever their parents believe without ever thinking about it, but what Sherine wants, obviously, is for children to grow up, not following their parents’ religion, but denouncing it altogether and becoming a humanist; in other words, exchanging one belief system for hers, and hers seems to be a particularly unpleasant one.
It’s cute how, alongside the names of religions, they have ATHEIST CHILD and HUMANIST CHILD on their posters, when that’s exactly what they want children to grow up to be. They must think folk were born yesterday.
Radio 4’s Thought for The Day has been a target of humanists for a while now. John Humphrys is the latest to join the bandwagon,
Mr Humphrys told The Times: “As a non-believer, I’ve always thought there’s an argument for a secular Thought for the Day — but not because of discrimination. I think we’d get some interesting views.”
What could an ‘atheist’ tell us that could fill us with hope as we get ready to go to work on a cold winter’s morning? For the unbeliever, death is the end. Not much hope there.
Humphrys, who described himself in his book, In God We Doubt, as an “angry agnostic” who could not bring himself to believe in God but could not stand “arrogant atheists”,
So, he’s not even an ‘atheist’. Sheesh! (I don’t believe anyone truly is.)
And the humanists are still nagging away at the educators. They have just succeeded in having Evolution Theory taught in all English primary schools from 2011.
Scientists and humanists had lobbied ministers for the inclusion of evolution in the theme-based timetable.
Professor Sir Martin Taylor, vice-president of the Royal Society, said:
“We are delighted to see evolution explicitly included in the primary curriculum.
“One of the most remarkable achievements of science over the last two hundred years has been to show how humans and all other organisms on the earth arose through the process of evolution.”
What is remarkable is that so many could be fooled by so few who understand so little.
Where does she say that she wants religion denounced, Stewart, or have you merely inferred that?
‘What could an ‘atheist’ tell us that could fill us with hope as we get ready to go to work on a cold winter’s morning? For the unbeliever, death is the end. Not much hope there.’
How about ’seize the day’? It’s all there is. Don’t spare the time to be miserable.
And why is it assumed that perpetuation of the self gives more hope than that the self will end? The thought of having to be me forever fills me with horror.
What is this word “hate”. I am a Humanist and never use the term. Surely it must be a religious word used only by people like you when referring to people who express ideas you cannot understand.
I think we may have found another nasty, toxic little christian.
Hi Jim,
I don’t think it’s a secret that these militant atheists want an end to religion. Didn’t Elton John even say it recently?
“Seize the day” is a good one. Depending what you do with it. A non-believer, who doesn’t think there is any consequence of sin, might take it the wrong way.
The first sentence of your last paragraph sounds rhetorical. The thing about Christianity is that you can be renewed – cast off your ‘old self’.
J Sutton,
I hate butter beans. Some people hate Brussels sprouts. I hate getting up some mornings. I hate what the government has done to this country (far more than I hate butter beans).
If someone seriously wrongs you, you may feel hatred towards them. It is only a natural reaction.
Because the Almighty God is real and because we are spiritual beings, humanists need to make big adjustments to the language. In other words, and in this instance, you do hate sometimes, but you call it something else. Isn’t that so?
And I reckon I understand humanist ideas very well.
I hate Man U!
‘I don’t think it’s a secret that these militant atheists want an end to religion.’
No doubt some do Stewart but has the woman you quote said so? You certainly imply that she has. You wouldn’t be putting words into her mouth, or, heaven forfend, ’stereotyping!’ her, would you?
And – just out of interest – may I inquire whom you expect to become once you’ve cast off your old self?
Jim,
Ms Sherine’s latest campaign is part of the effort to end faith schools. Presumably state ones only. At least, initially! I’m not an expert on this particular woman, but I’m making, I think, an extremely well-educated guess that she is like the other radical humanists.
“And – just out of interest – may I inquire whom you expect to become once you’ve cast off your old self?”
I think John chapter 3 explains about being born again, i.e. not of the flesh this time, but of the Spirit.
Dr Baxter,
How many militant atheists do you know who wish to further the work of the Gospel?
Turkeys and Christmas spring to mind.
‘but I’m making, I think, an extremely well-educated guess that she is like the other radical humanists.’
One man’s extremely well-educated guess is another man’s grossly unwarranted presumption, Stewart (I am that other man). You Creationists, unreasoning fanatics the lot of you. Well, that’s just my extremely well-educated guess.
Not that you and English Viking (Hi English – not furthering it is not the same as denouncing it) seem to agree on who or Who it was who demanded burnt offerings.
Hi Dr Baxter,
How many militant atheists do you know who do not denounce the Gospel?
I think that Stewart and I do agree on the One who demanded the offerings, but if you wish to argue, you know I’m game.
English,
Atheists are not an homogenous group. Stewart has his hand in the till on this one. He is going beyond the facts – something that he tends to accuse evolutionary theorists of doing – (I love Lucy)..
A Creationist going beyond the facts – who’d have thought it? (Stewart knows that I am teasing – I respect him and despise recourse to personal abuse over differences of outlook).
‘You know I’m game.’
I do indeed, sir. Always a pleasure to break a longship, I mean a lance, with you. I thought Stewart said something about burnt offerings being a weakness of man a while back. Perhaps I misunderstood. Speaking of a while back (O/T – apologies Stewart), all the way back to the start of the cosmos in fact, I seem to recall you said something about an ‘horizon problem’ with regard to te Penzias and Wilson 3 degrees Kelvin radiation. I was so enjoying trashing the rest of your argument that I overlooked the opportunity to trash that. Could you remind me please of what you meant and explicate?
Best
J
While I’m on a manic (the crash is around the corner – it’s the dilithium crystals, Captain) I read John:3, Stewart, as linked.
I could almost accept the spiritual idea. But not as expressed in the Bible. I mean,
what’s this all about?
‘He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.’
That looks very human to me – why does God care if He is beleived in or not?
Dr Baxter,
I am always happy to joust, and even sometimes to win.
Perhaps you refer to Mr Gibb’s request for evidence that God is pleased with sacrifices? I see no disparity between my and Stewart’s position.
With regard to the ‘Horizon Problem’ and the ambient temperature (as supposed) of the Universe, you presuppose a constant speed of light (most certainly not proven), that the Creator (or the moment of creation by ’scientific’ means) occurred in the same place and at the same time, etc, etc. You must also believe that space, time and distance can be accurately measured by beings who you yourself describe as having brains which are malfunctioning, distorted, abnormal, or words to that effect.
I am not a scientist (thank God), I am not even very well educated; I am a pleb, a prole, a chav. But I know this; the Universe did not sprout from nothing; the Earth is made by something other than an explosion; the Moon, the Sun, the Milky Way and all of these kind of things did not happen as the result of an explosion of nothing, triggered by no one. To think otherwise is foolish.
You have exactly the same evidence as me for the age of, for example, the Moon, or Jupiter, or Mars. That evidence being next to nothing, we just interpret it differently.
Imagine this: If a person were accused of the crime of believing in evolution, and that that person pled ‘ Not guilty’, I am sure that a reasonable jury of their peers would acquit, based on a total lack of evidence.
I have had many, many arguments with people who are most definitely convinced of their evolutionary position. Not a single one has ever caused me to doubt that Christ is The way, The Truth, The Life. I could not say the same for their own convictions.
My Longboat is intact, as is my Lance.
PS An answer to my question would be nice, which was ‘How many militant atheists do you know who do not denounce The Gospel?
Jim, indeed, atheists are not an homogenous group, which is just as well considering how much influence a small group like the BHA has. We should all be thankful.
“why does God care if He is believed in or not?”
Because faith in Christ is the only thing that deals with sin. Without being figuratively washed in the Blood of the Lamb, your sins can never be dealt with and so you can never be saved from the pit.
‘But I know this; the Universe did not sprout from nothing; the Earth is made by something other than an explosion; the Moon, the Sun, the Milky Way and all of these kind of things did not happen as the result of an explosion of nothing, triggered by no one. To think otherwise is foolish.’
English, there you run into the tired old regression problem, no less a problem for being tired and old, i.e. so where did God come from? The maths shows that something can come from nothing if the net amount of something still amounts to nothing. So you ‘know’ nothing of the kind: your longship is at the bottom of a very deep fjord. It’s just that you’ve evolved gills and so you don’t realise how fishy your whole case is.
‘I have had many, many arguments with people who are most definitely convinced of their evolutionary position. Not a single one has ever caused me to doubt that Christ is The way, The Truth, The Life. I could not say the same for their own convictions.’
I should hope you couldn’t. The whole point of science is to embrace uncertainty (ask Heisenberg sometime – after all you may get to meet him). Only faith breeds ‘certainty’, and a wildly mistaken one.
I’m afraid I still don’t understand your views on the horizon problem. No doubt the fault lies with my own feeble powers of comprehension. I certainly wouldn’t suggest that you haven’t the faintest idea what you are talking about and that you picked up these two words somewhere and added them to your (very rusty) armoury with the idea that they might somehow come in handy, like an old washer found in the street.
Our brains are indeed unreliable: that’s one reason why I would put no faith in the ancients’ explanations of how the world works
My apologies for not answering your question before. I don’t think I know any militant atheists, although I know of some. (!)
‘Because faith in Christ is the only thing that deals with sin. Without being figuratively washed in the Blood of the Lamb, your sins can never be dealt with and so you can never be saved from the pit.’
Stewart, you might as well have written that in Japanese. I am none the wiser.
Let me try to explain my difficulty with faith. This is how the argument looks to me, catechistically: why does somebody believe? Because it says they must in scripture. Why believe the scripture? Because it is the Word of God. How do you know? It says so in the scripture.
That’s how it looks to me, and I’m not trying to be funny.
Dr Baxter,
As I have previously said, I am not a scientist. I do not have the answers to all your questions, but neither do I pretend to. I have studied a lot of the theories that have been produced in order to explain Man’s existence, the Earth and the Universe. I am not familiar with all of them, I am not an expert on inter-stellar physics. Of the theories studied I have found none of them to be convincing; erudite, intellectual, curious, yes, convincing no.
You could mention clever scientific theories until the cows come home and, if I am not familiar with them, I could Google them to find an equally plausible contradictory view.
We ‘know’ next to nothing, if we use the strictest sense of the word. I do not know that you exist, or that I am not dreaming now, or dead. I assume otherwise, because the evidence leads me to believe otherwise. I do not ‘know’ that the Gospel is absolute truth, but because the evidence points in no other direction, I shall hold to the explanations given in the Bible until a more plausible suggestion is made.
With regard to your request for further information on the Horizon Problem, here’s one I made earlier:
The horizon problem is a problem with the standard cosmological model of the Big Bang which was identified in the 1970s. It points out that different regions of the universe have not “contacted” each other due to the great distances between them, but nevertheless they have the same temperature and other physical properties. This should not be possible, given that the exchange of information (or energy, heat, etc.) can only take place at the speed of light. The horizon problem may have been answered by inflationary theory, and is one of the reasons for that theory’s formation.
When one looks out into the night sky, distances also correspond to time into the past. A galaxy measured at ten billion light years in distance appears to us as it was ten billion years ago, because the light has taken that long to travel to the viewer. If one were to look at a galaxy ten billion light years away in one direction, say “west”, and another in the opposite direction, “east”, the total distance between them is twenty billion light years. This means that the light from the first has not yet reached the second, because the 13.7 billion years that the universe has existed simply isn’t a long enough time to allow it to occur. In a more general sense, there are portions of the universe that are visible to us, but invisible to each other, outside each other’s respective particle horizons.
In standard physical theories, no information can travel faster than the speed of light. In this context, “information” means “any sort of physical interaction”. For instance, heat will naturally flow from a hotter area to a cooler one, and in physics terms this is one example of information exchange. Given the example above, the two galaxies in question cannot have shared any sort of information, they are not in “causal contact”. One would expect, then, that their physical properties would be different, and more generally, that the universe as a whole would have varying properties in different areas.
Contrary to this expectation, the universe is in fact extremely homogeneous. For instance, the cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB), which fills the universe, is almost precisely the same temperature everywhere in the sky, about 2.725 K. The difference in temperature is so slight that it has only recently become possible to develop instruments even capable of measuring it. This presents a serious problem; if the universe had started with even slightly different temperatures in different areas, then there would simply be no way it could have evened itself out to a common temperature by this point in time. Quantum physics demands that this difference should actually exist due to the uncertainty principle; such that there is no way that the universe could have formed with precisely the same properties everywhere, as the uncertainty principle essentially states that there is no way for even the universe to know precisely what those properties are.
The magnitude of this problem is quite large. According to the Big Bang model, as the density of the universe dropped while it expanded, it eventually reached a point where photons in the “mix” of particles were no longer immediately impacting matter – they “decoupled” from the plasma and spread out into the universe as a burst of light. This is thought to have occurred about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. The volume of any possible information exchange at that time was 900,000 light years across, using the speed of light and the rate of expansion of space in the early universe. Instead, the entire sky has the same temperature, a volume 1088 times larger.
How many militant atheists, that you know of, do not denounce the Gospel?
‘using the speed of light and the rate of expansion of space in the early universe’.
There we have it. It depends on the rate of expansion and that has changed from the early times, i.e., it has increased.
So, no horizon problem then, thanks to inflationary cosmology. The homogeneity of the visible universe on a grand scale is entirely of a piece with our modern mathematical understanding.
Regarding those militant atheists that I know of, your reasoning I suspect is circular; i.e. by your definition a militant atheist is one who denounces the Gospel. How would you define a non-militant atheist?
Dr Baxter,
My reasoning is circular? Pot and kettle, Sir.
Inflation theory was concocted to attempt to explain the enormous problems highlighted in the previous post. It is a very convenient assumption that the Universe is expanding, and that it is doing so now at a different rate than previously. Assumptions, not facts. You seem to have an explanation for the origins of the universe, then someone disproves that explanation, then you jump from your sinking Titanic of science into the nearest lifeboat of the latest fad theory, until that is disproved. This process seems to carry on indefinitely, with the cry of ‘embracing uncertainty’ used to make one appear broad-minded, when in actual fact you are deliberately shielding your mind from vital truths.
It’s poor form to answer a question with a question. I have given no definition of militant atheism. How many militant atheists, that you know of, do not denounce the Gospel?
English,
Inflation theory was developed because the previous theory was faulty. That is was faulty was shown by, among other things, the cosmological background radiation. Newton’s theory was also faulty. Does that mean all of his sums are rubbish, therefore?
That’s the way science works. That’s why it’s not circular reasoning. It adapts to the evidence, as life adapts to the environment. You try out an idea and reject or modify it in the light of new evidence. We know that the rate of expansion is increasing because of your good friend and mine – red-shift. The further away the galaxy the greater the red shift.
Religion, on the other hand, demands certainties. It has no new ideas and if it tries new ideas out it quickly unravels, as we can see all around us in the many of the established churches. That’s actually why I have more respect for your views and Stewart’s – utterly barmy though they are – than I do for those who decide that this bit or that bit of the Bible can now be ignored or re-interpreted as ‘myth’. Unlike sceintific theory the Bible cannot be adapted to fit new evidence. It is the evidence for the faithful.
‘I have given no definition of militant atheism.’
I know. And shame on you. Always define your terms, my teachers said.
My inference was merely that. You know, like Stewart’s inference that the lady teleologically responsible for this thread must be a Gospel denouncer, only with a much more informed rationale.
But, why not give your definition now? You seem to know a lot about militant atheists, more than I do. I really don’t follow that team at all.
Dr Baxter,
Red Shift is flawed when used to try to establish the age of the Universe. I could cut and paste pages of problems with this, and with Inflationary Theory, and all the following theories that try to explain one problem whilst creating two more, but what is the point? You believe your priest, the scientist, because he claims to hold the key to truth. He in fact ‘knows’ next to nothing, but his followers think themselves immune from all this ‘God nonsense’ and cling to his every word, hoping against hope that he is correct, but never knowing. They put their faith in science and it’s priests and think those who put their faith elsewhere are ignorant and primitive.
You are correct in thinking that God is immutable, as is His Word and the instructions given to His followers in that Word. Hebrews 13 v 8 says ‘Jesus Christ, the same yesterday, today and forever’. It is a comfort to me that He is dependable, unchanging, not swayed by fashionable theories or PC clap-trap.
We both appear to be doing the same thing, but just going in different directions. You appear (correct me if I’m wrong’) convinced that God does not exist, or if He does He does not interfere in human affairs. Because of this conviction your mindset is stuck in the ‘God does not exist, therefore science must be right’ mode, fitting the evidence around your belief system and ignoring all contrary evidence. I am stuck in the ‘Science is mostly no such thing, therefore God must be right’ mode and accept or reject ‘evidence’ based on this mindset. Where we appear to differ is that I am prepared to renounce my faith should the evidence suggest this to be the correct course of action. In regard to your faith, you appear as immutable as your creator.
I assume you will not answer the militant atheist question because you know the correct answer and that that answer will disprove the point you made with Stewart.
My definition of a militant atheist is a person who not only claims to not believe in God, but also gets very agitated if someone does express belief. They appear to be resentful that a person should derive comfort from the Word of God, their religion is to be irreligious, their faith is in themselves and their Gospel is spread by scientists, teachers, governments and the media. For every argument they proffer I can produce a counter-argument, for every theory they produce there is a flaw.
PS Your ’science adapting to the evidence’ thing just sounds like ‘making it up as we go along’ to me, but then again, I’m not a believer.
English,
I don’t doubt you can round up any number of ‘refutations’ of any and all scientific evidence. When a good enough refutation comes along I’ll consider it seriously. I haven’t seen one yet on here. I have no faith in anything except human nature (I trust it to be venal in 95% of cases). I try to consider the balance of probabilities, and religion is a lot more improbable, to me, than anything I know of in science. I fully accept that some people do cling to science as a kind of faith in the way you imply. It happens that I am not one of them. I have never seen any reason to believe that a supernatural being, or one beyond our present comprehension anyway, takes any interest in this planet or what happens on or around it. I’d state my view no more strongly than that.
Whether ‘militant atheists’ (not a term or a type that interests me so that is why I have no answer) ‘always’ denounce religion or not has no bearing at all on my little quibble with Stewart. None. But I thank you for your belated definition. I recognise the kind of person you refer to; as I have no doubt you will acknowledge, the same reaction to a challenge to their views can be found in some religious people. In fact, you find that kind of behaviour everywhere and linked to just about every possible opinion, from the state of the climate to football. It’s seldom a noble prospect and it certainly isn’t any more noble coming from atheists. Rather less so, I’d say.
‘For every argument they proffer I can produce a counter-argument, for every theory they produce there is a flaw’.
That’s exactly how I see your (burnt-out) profferings.
‘PS Your ’science adapting to the evidence’ thing just sounds like ‘making it up as we go along’ to me’.
No doubt it does but, as I’ve said before, one of the functions of science it to reveal new questions, questions which only become evident once some science has been done. Most progress is made by building on previous work, not by rejecting it.
Dr Baxter,
‘… as I’ve said before, one of the functions of science it to reveal new questions, questions which only become evident once some science has been done. Most progress is made by building on previous work, not by rejecting it.’
Building on faulty foundations always leads to tears before bedtime.
English,
Not if you find ways to reinforce them. So, Newton’s work was indeed all rubbish then according to you, since a new theory had to be developed to tidy up its shortcomings?
And what is your objection to the red-shift work anyway? Do you refuse to believe that fire-engines with the sirens blaring seem to change tone as they pass you? It’s a brave man, or a foolhardy one, who takes on old Christian (!) Doppler.
Dr Baxter,
One cannot reinforce sand.
You are putting words in my mouth. Newton is an interesting example of problem as I see it. His work was accepted as correct by his peers and taught to students for decades, before parts of it were proved wrong. Those new ideas are now accepted as fact, until someone else puts a spanner in the works. This goes on and on, interminably, with each new ‘fact’ considered progress.
I did say that I found it pointless to simply cut and paste different scientists differing views on all things bright and beautiful, so I’ll keep it brief.
The use of Red Shift to calculate the apparently vast distances in the Universe is flawed because it relies on too many variables that we just cannot accurately measure, such as differences in gravitational forces, an assumption that ’space-time’ is perfectly flat and perfectly constant and an expanding Universe. It also (sometimes) ignores Einstein by allowing for differences in the speed of light. For these reasons I consider the evidence insufficient to change my faith from Christ to science.
There is a Red-Shift Doppler effect observable when viewing the Sun. This is strange, as most people believe that the Sun is not moving away from Earth. You see what I mean about one scientist says one thing and another, another?
For every Doppler there’s a Compton.
English,
Let’s see. Newton’s ideas are still pretty useful you know. Engineers tend to make use of them a fair bit. Bridges didn’t start falling down when Einstein came along. The theory just needed a bit of development. Maybe Einstein’s theory will need a bit of refurbishemtn too one day. In the meantime, he did predict gravitional lensing before it was observed.
‘The use of Red Shift to calculate the apparently vast distances in the Universe is flawed because it relies on too many variables that we just cannot accurately measure, such as differences in gravitational forces, an assumption that ’space-time’ is perfectly flat and perfectly constant and an expanding Universe.’
Yeah. It’s flawed. Putting a number to the Hubble constant was still a problem the last time I heard. and redshift is what leads us to believe the universe is expanding so you’d better take that out of your reasoning or it will looks as circular as spacetime looks flat as far as the eye can see.
Yes, we don’t know everything yet. What’s your point, therefore? You can’t have all the answers now you know, not from science. Is that why you prefer the Bible – less ambiguity and no waiting for answers?
As for the red shift in the sun, dear oh dear – get a sense of proportion man. This is the trouble with most of these so-called ‘refutations’. They take one tiny observation and magnify into something big enough to deflate a whole theory. It’s isnt’, and it doesn’t. The sun’s redshift is some local effect of photon decay – We do know that momentum transfer of solar photons to the electrons of the atoms of the solar atmosphere produces secondary radiation, after all. I thought everybody knew that. The energy of this is lost from the energy of the initial photons and that probably produces the redshift. Really, English, you’ll have to do better than that.
And… the sun’s redshift is really not quite on the scale of a galaxy belting away from us now is it, to say nothing of the Andromeda galaxy blueshift as it fairly shifts towards us?
For every Doppler there’s a million numpties.
Dr Baxter,
There are other problems with Red Shift, as you are no doubt aware. My point is that as a theory it doesn’t really fit very well with other theories, nor with some facts. It’s like the piece of jigsaw with blue sky on it; It doesn’t really fit where I am trying to force it, but it sort of does, if you don’t look too closely. The problem is that, in forcing this piece to ‘fit’ where it does not I am obviously creating another piece that will not fit anywhere, except if I admit I cheated and remove the ill-fitting piece. I could of course continue to ram the wrong pieces in the wrong places but in the end I would be left with a grotesque distortion of the real picture. Scientists need to remove a whole load of ill-fitting pieces, but I don’t think they have the humility to do so. The global warming ‘fact’ fakers of this week are just another example of why I do not trust scientists to tell me what to believe.
I’m glad that you noticed that using Red Shift to prove a constantly expanding universe by needing to assume a constantly expanding universe in the first place is circular reasoning, that was exactly my point, and just one more reason to dismiss Red Shift as nothing more than an unproven theory, to go along with all the others.
If (and it is an ‘if’) secondary radiation is the cause of the Red Shift of the Sun, this creates the problem of having to know all the radiation levels of all objects being observed and everything in between them and the point of observation. As we obviously do not have this data, and show no sign whatsoever of being able to obtain it anytime in the next millennium, it’s just another nail in the coffin for poor old Red Shift.
You ask my point (I often think the same thing). I think it is to say that science, for all it’s grandiose language, all the intellectually stimulating topics covered, all the pontificating and predicting, is of almost no use in explaining life, the Universe and everything.
You say of my doubting:
This is the trouble with most of these so-called ‘refutations’. They take one tiny observation and magnify into something big enough to deflate a whole theory. It isnt, and it doesn’t.
I am afraid that the Red Shift of the Sun does present an enormous problem for the theory of an expanding Universe. If the Sun is not moving away from the Earth, then this proves either (a) The secondary radiation levels around stars are so high that it corrupts the data obtained by Red Shift to the point of uselessness or (b) The Universe is not expanding, and therefore Red Shift as a tool for calculating supposedly vast distances is, once again, useless.
I do prefer The Bible to science, for the simple reason that I know the author to be completely trustworthy, unlike scientists.
I don’t pounce on these things as though they are cast iron evidence of the limitations of science, I simply say that they cannot be used as evidence against the existence of God. Some people seem to think that the Universe is billions of years old, and therefore the Earth is billions of years old, and the Bible teaches that it’s not, and therefore the Bible is wrong and God does not exist. This is why I point out errors commonly assumed to be definitive evidence of the superiority of science over Christianity.
BTW have you really seen flat space-time? What does it look like?
‘I am afraid that the Red Shift of the Sun does present an enormous problem for the theory of an expanding Universe. If the Sun is not moving away from the Earth, then this proves either (a) The secondary radiation levels around stars are so high that it corrupts the data obtained by Red Shift to the point of uselessness or (b) The Universe is not expanding, and therefore Red Shift as a tool for calculating supposedly vast distances is, once again, useless.’
English,
Guess what. I disagree. There are quite simple reasons. Galaxies differ greatly in redshift by several orders of considerable magnitude. The simplest explanation is that we are seeign a Doppler effect, not the result of photon decay on a galactic scale. Why would it be so variable?
As for scientists saying different and contradictory things – that’s true – they do indeed – that’s the nature of science – debate and counterdebate – they have no Bible to coalesce around. The thing is, that those who do
have a Bible, Christians – also say very different things. How many Christian denominations are there? Several dozens at least – would you agree on that? To say nothing of completely different religions. Who is a poor faithless scientist to believe when faced with that bewildering array?
I don’t believe that science disproves the existence of God, by the way. It can’t. It never will and scientists should stick to their science and stay out of religion, unless their science is to try to explain human thinking, of course. I wish them luck with that one. They’ll need it.
Flat space-time looks flat. You know what flat looks like. It’s flatter than round, to give you some idea.
Dr Baxter,
RE Red Shift, Your explanations are no more (no less either) valid than mine concerning the Red Shift of the Sun. The correct answer is that neither you, me or science really has the foggiest. Do you have a satisfactory explanation for the self contradictory data obtained by the Red Shift method when observing Quasars, now you have excluded photon decay? Even if you do, I’ll wager I have an equally plausible counter.
There are indeed several dozen different denominations in Christianity (you might be relieved to know that I will not ask you to name them!) It is a sad fact that men have disagreed over the meaning and implementation of God’s word, but to be fair, those disagreements usually revolve around issues which do not concern the essential truths contained in the Gospel. I am not aware of any Christian denominations which say that man is not a sinner, or that God does not exist, or that Jesus is not The Truth. Non Christians tend to jump on these discrepancies and ‘magnify them into something big enough to deflate the whole theory, denominationalism isn’t and it doesn’t’ – Hat tip to Dr Baxter for the quote.
Denominationalism is not condoned or encouraged in the Bible, it was not and is not part of God’s plan for the Church. That disobedient men have done what they do best-disobey- is not evidence of a fault in Christian doctrine, just it’s followers. I would hazard a guess that I dislike organised religion just as much as you do. I think it a shallow, vain thing, with the dirty paw-prints of men all over it and packed to the rafters with persons who have plainly not understood or believed the Gospel, led (in some, but not all cases) by the very worst the carnal mind can produce. These systems were never condoned in the Bible (although they are predicted as evidence of the continuing depravity of men toward the end of this age) and my opinions on this matter are one of the reasons why people like Stewart and myself are often considered weirdos, often by others who claim to be Christians. I would encourage you to go to the source, the Bible, for information on what Christianity is and is not, not the opinions of men, including me.
Of course FLAT space-time looks flat, but you know that there are numerous ‘denominations’ of science which say it’s a load of other things as well. Received opinion is that the presence of matter distorts this ‘fabric’. So which is it; flat, curved, distorted, holey or plain and simple ‘don’t know, we’ll just pick the one which best suits the next theory which fails to explain things satisfactorily?’
I agree that science would have a very hard time proving the negative of the non-existence of God, but that was not my point. I do not think that there will come the discovery of some amazing equation that will finally prove it for science, and I don’t think science is looking for it. What I think is that the drip, drip, drip of insinuations, hints and allegations, put forward by science concerning the Genesis account of creation is achieving the desired effect in the minds of men, just as this magical missing equation would. It is as insidious as it it is surreptitious and promotes the notion that faith is a nonsense and unscientific and therefore God does not exist.
I have found that, when commencing a conversation with a person in the West concerning the existence of God, there is almost always a pre-supposition that He does not exist and that science has proved this. Seeing as science is virtually untaught in state schools anymore, and that science has proved no such thing, where does this this pre-supposition come from? I think from sound-bites like ‘Big-Bang’ and it’s famous (infamous?) apostles Dawkins and Hawking. From Daily Mail headlines and BBC lies. I am like the boy with his finger in the dyke, I cannot fight all these lies on my own, I just hope that maybe some odd one or two reading this will pick up a Bible and look for themselves.
English,
Red shift is a Doppler effect all right. The best evidence? There is such a thing as blue shift.
You believe that questions in scientific theory seriously, possibly fatally, undermine science as an explanation of the world. I consider them merely to be puzzles to be solved, as many such puzzles have previously been solved. Your idea that science is built on sand because previous theories have had to be abandoned or modified is bizarre – I fear you may be wearing your horned hat inside out. Is medicine built on sand because it was once tought that blood-letting, inhaling mercury, and basking in the rays from a radium-source were good for your health?
Received opinion on religion goes well beyond the disputes among Christians but while we’re discussing them – some seem to believe that Genesis is to be taken literally while others consider it an allegory. I’d call that a pretty significant conflict of views. Other religions of course regard Christ as a prophet but not a divine one, still other religions… etc.
Scientists have one thing they tend to agree on too: that what is significant in world and the cosmos can be observed, tested and measured, modelled mathematically and gradually explained. It’s good that there are those who question its very bases – good for science that is.
Your beliefs are rooted in ancient texts compiled by ancient peoples, perhaps revised over the centuries and altered by who knows whom for who knows what reasons, peoples to whom the world and the sky were a great mystery. You look to these ancients for guidance. A core injunction to be found on many pages of the Bible – the whole point indeed of many of its stories – is a simple one: believe, or else! I wonder why that has to be given such repeated emphasis. You don’t find such commands or threats in science.
One last thing I’ve been meaning to ask for a while…
How do you know how ancient ancient scriptures are? Let me guess… they’ve been… carbon-dated!
Har har.
Mr Baxter,
I was not talking of the branch of science known as medicine. I was talking about the attempts of science to describe the origins of the universe. The reason that medicine has progressed is because we do KNOW (as much as is possible in the strictest sense of the word) which treatments work and which ones don’t. The failures in medicine lead to the death of the body, which, understandably, tends to lead to extremely thorough investigations of the facts and constant improvement. I can measure if a person is dead or alive, blind or seeing, improving or deteriorating. I cannot measure the distance of remote galaxies, I do not know the mass of the planets or their gravitational force. I have to guess them, and guessing is most certainly what the vast majority of this branch of science is. That guesses are built on top of someone else guess means we are likely to be heading ever further from the truth, the exact opposite of medicine. If I were a scientist I would dress those guesses up in arcane language to give the impression that I was both an expert and that non-experts are so ignorant they should just believe, or else. Note the ever increasing hostility toward ‘climate change deniers’ from the scientific community, rather like ‘believe, or else.’
The abject failure of science to provide answers in the same way as medicine can lead to the a far more serious death. The Bible calls it ‘the second death’. We are taught from birth that the death is to be avoided at all costs, that it the worst thing that can happen to a person. This is not true, the ‘death’ of the soul is a fate far worse than death.
As I have previously said, there are serious disagreements between those calling themselves Christian about all sorts of things, including creation. So what? Because two people do not agree, does that make Christ a liar when he refers to creation literally? Would you allow me to call myself a scientist and then put forward the idea that science is splintered because I do not agree with it? I am not worthy of the name ’scientist’, nor are a lot of troublemakers who call themselves ‘Christian’.
The opinions of men are worthless. I must know God’s opinion on a matter, and He wrote them down for us to refer to.
You have no scientific (because I know you’re fond of science) reason to suppose the Scriptures have been altered. There is no evidence of tampering until very recently (around the late 1970’s) when it became fashionable to omit parts of scripture and blatantly change the meanings of words in trendy, liberal versions of the Bible. These versions do not correlate to the originals and are untrustworthy. That my belief in ancient texts should be questioned is strange. You would think me a very unusual man if I were to declare that I put my faith in scriptures that were written last week. You see how you frame your language to paint me ignorant, perhaps a little primitive or backward, because I have a belief in writings which, most obviously, must be ancient when they claim to have been written under the inspiration of God and concern the very beginning of our race and planet? You could do no worse if you patted me on the head and whisper to the others in the room, as though I cannot hear you, ‘as long as he’s happy.’ You are straying into an area in which I am far more proficient than inter-stellar physics so you might need to buy a few more lances.
PS What about those Quasars?
Dr Baxter,
Just posted my last reply and see you have raised the Carbon Dating thing.
It is not so that we know the ages of the Scriptures from carbon dating. We know because we can correlate the events written of in the Bible with the simply enormous amount of corroborating evidence from the hostile sources such as Tacitus and Josephus, from Kings referred to and the dates of their reign, from military campaigns recorded, that a lot of things written are not pre-historic, from the linguistic styles employed by the writers, their syntax and dialect, the type of writing instruments and the kind of ink.
Carbon dating is as unreliable at guessing the age of an object as Red Shift is at measuring it’s distance and they both deteriorate in accuracy very significantly the greater the age or distance recorded.
English,
Medicine is science. You mean it gets quicker results. And that’s all you mean.
There are of course people who believe in the tenets of very recently founded churches. I won’t name them here. They art famously litigious and I wouldn’t want to get Stewart into bother. I don’t think them any more or less unusual than Creationists.
‘…must be ancient when they claim to have been written under the inspiration of God’ I’d say they were written by intelligent, imaginative, fearful paper who were scared, with good reason, of lightning, floods and bad weather and had no understanding of where these phenomena came from apart from what their imaginations could conjure. They had all experienced the power and anger of greater beings early in their lives and known fear of those beings. It was by no means illogical for them to come to believe that there was a greater being still. So you see the world through their eyes and call their ideas the Word of God.
Few ancient texts can survive the urge to edit and adjust of those who see in them a means to power. Stewart is interested in cosnpiracies. I don’t doubt that Constantine I was an utterly ruthless character who would back any conspiracy that would increase his power. Human nature.
Send four and sixpence, we’re going to a dance.
PS what about all those demands to believe or else? Are the aboriginal peoples of the pre 1492 Americas damned
because they did not know Christ and put their faith in Him? To say nothing of the fate of a few billions alive today.
fearful paper ??? People, I meant. They had no paper.
Dr Baxter,
Why do I answer your questions, but you seem to skip most of mine?
‘Medicine is science. You mean it gets quicker results. And that’s all you mean.’
No It’s not. I mean that the results of medicine can be accurately evaluated, theory is very thin on the ground, facts and figures and proof abound, most unlike the ridiculous idea that, for example, even if the Universe were 13.7 billion years old, we would have a way of accurately measuring such a colossal time/distance and that that finding could in any way be verified.
‘There are of course people who believe in the tenets of very recently founded churches. I won’t name them here. They are famously litigious and I wouldn’t want to get Stewart into bother. I don’t think them any more or less unusual than Creationists.’
What’s that got to with the price of fish? Does this mean that I am therefore incorrect in my faith in Christ and His Word? Surely it is further evidence of the stupidity of modern man that he be sucked into fads and cults, just as the Bible predict he will be. Matthew 24 KJV.
BTW I’m not a creationist, I’m a Christian.
‘I’d say they were written by intelligent, imaginative, fearful people who were scared, with good reason, of lightning, floods and bad weather and had no understanding of where these phenomena came from apart from what their imaginations could conjure.’
I guess your opinion is all well and good until you consider that the writers of these Scriptures do not claim to have been influenced by the ‘lightning god’ or the ‘earthquake’ god. Some claim to have had direct, verbal communication with THE God, like Moses, Isaiah and Elijah. They claim their writings are not their own, but were written whilst under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit. To try to ascribe pagan ideas to the Scriptures of Almighty God is proof that you are ill-informed on Christian doctrine.
‘Few ancient texts can survive the urge to edit and adjust of those who see in them a means to power.’
You are absolutely correct Sir, that the Bible did so is just another indication of it’s uniqueness and superiority.
‘PS what about all those demands to believe or else? Are the aboriginal peoples of the pre 1492 Americas damned because they did not know Christ and put their faith in Him? To say nothing of the fate of a few billions alive today.’
Those who oppose God tend to trot out the same questions time after time, as though they somehow have a Joker which will trump all other argument. You seem to have a great deal of pre-supposed ideas about God, like He has to be this, or that, or the other, otherwise his is non-existent. God can do as He chooses with His own creation, the book of Hebrews teaches this fact. God does not HAVE to ‘be nice’, He does not HAVE to save, He does not HAVE to share His Heaven with those responsible for the death of His Son. That He is not capricious is good news for us, but He can be whatever He wants, whenever He wants to be it, without prior reference to me or thee. He could have, if He had so chosen, damned every last one of us. Those who wilfully reject the promptings of the Holy Spirit to repent, to confess their sins, to accept Christ, will perish. This has always been the case. Those who are ignorant of the full truth of the Gospel through no fault of their own, e.g. Red Indians (am I allowed to call them that nowadays?) or Aztecs or Incas have, according to the Bible, the testimony of creation and the Law of God that is written in their hearts and in their consciences. If they choose to disobey these things, they too are to perish. God will always judge the hearts of men, which thing controls their thoughts, words and deeds.
There is no doubt, either in my mind or in the Scriptures, that Hell will be very full indeed.
There is no need for you to finish your course there as well.
‘Those who are ignorant of the full truth of the Gospel through no fault of their own, e.g. Red Indians (am I allowed to call them that nowadays?) or Aztecs or Incas have, according to the Bible, the testimony of creation and the Law of God that is written in their hearts and in their consciences.’
No doubt you can quote me chapter and verse on that. Please be kind enough to do so. And doesn’t that imply that knowledge of Christ and the bible is not needed if you are true to your heart and conscience? Are you a Calvinist by any chance?
Christianity was a thought of as a sect once. It became an established religion at the command of Constantine I. I know that you, English, care nothing for established churches but my guess, and I freely call it such, is that without Constantine you or I would know as much about Christians as we do about the followers of Mithra.
Those who oppose science tend to trot out the same questions time after time, as though they somehow have a Joker which will trump all other argument. (Hat-tip to English Viking).
God can do what He likes. OK. I accept that if God is there that must be true of Him. I can ask why though He demands our worship on pain of damnation. That sounds like coercion, vanity, and brainwashing to me, the kind of things that humans do.
I say again: you see the world through ancient eyes – eyes struggling to comprehend that which is beyond
their understanding, but which is not beyond ours.
‘There is no need for you to finish your course there as well.’
Those I take as the words of a true Christian. I mean that as a compliment, just in case anyone should doubt.
English
And quasars. You asked me what I know about quasars. Thank you for your patience. My understanding of them is that they are objects of the very early universe – perhaps all galaxies went through a quasar phase. Ours certainly has a suepermassive balck hole at its centre which would be consisent with that hypothosis Or, perhaps they were early species of galaxy, now extinct. The only ones we can see now are billions of light-years away and so are probably long gone, unlike Lonnie Donnegan, who is only recently gone. I regret his passing.
I believe others argue differently about quasars – what is it you call people who disagree with you about matters of faith? – oh yes – ‘troublemakers.’ I see no reason – yet – to agree with them. If a compelling reason comes my way I shall reconsider, like a good scientist.
One final thing – no really this time – but only because I am retiring from the blogosphere for a few days – let English lick his wounds – only fair (although I fear he will pine, poor dear). I shall return as General McArthur said.
There are those, including an occasional correspondent of Stewart’s, who say, usually sarcastically, that those to whom God talks are these days known as ’schizophrenics’.
I don’t say that, and I don’t find the remark in the slightest amusing. There are many things we don’t understand and one thing that we certainly don’t undertand is the type of thinking that occurs in the minds of those labelled ’schizophrenics’. We say we can treat it with chemicals that will make people ‘normal’ again. But are we just removing their specialness? I don’t know. We say that schizophrenia is actually a chemical disorder of the brain, that it’s really a very boring condition where the same type of nonsense comes out time and again about your thoughts being controlled or hearing voices in your head, and not always divine voices; sometimes profane voices.
I don’t know if hearing God is a sign of a mental disorder or if it’s the rest of us who don’t hear God who are disordered. I don’t believe anybody else knows either.
I still don’t believe in the God of the Abrahamic tradtion though, just in case you think I’m lodging a late appeal.
Stewart, my thanks. You are a true democrat who believes in free speech, as your tolerance shows.
Dr Baxter,
‘No doubt you can quote me chapter and verse on that. Please be kind enough to do so. And doesn’t that imply that knowledge of Christ and the bible is not needed if you are true to your heart and conscience? Are you a Calvinist by any chance?’
Of course I can quote chapter and verse, you’re not implying that I’m making things up, are you?
‘This is the covenant that I will make with them after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my laws into their hearts, and in their minds will I write them;’ Hebrews 10 v 16 KJV
‘Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of Him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:’ Romans 1 vv 19, 20 KJV
For when the Gentiles, which have not the law, do by nature the things contained in the law, these, having not the law, are a law unto themselves: Which shew the work of the law written in their hearts, their conscience also bearing witness, and their thoughts the meanwhile accusing or else excusing one another; Romans 2 vv 14, 15
Matthew Henry’s commentary is most appropriate on the verses from Romans 1:18-25; The apostle begins to show that all mankind need the salvation of the gospel, because none could obtain the favour of God, or escape his wrath by their own works. For no man can plead that he has fulfilled all his obligations to God and to his neighbour; nor can any truly say that he has fully acted up to the light afforded him. The cause of that sinfulness is holding the truth in unrighteousness. All, more or less, do what they know to be wrong, and omit what they know to be right, so that the plea of ignorance cannot be allowed from any. Our Creator’s invisible power and Godhead are so clearly shown in the works he has made, that even idolaters and wicked Gentiles are left without excuse. They foolishly followed idolatry; and rational creatures changed the worship of the glorious Creator, for that of brutes, reptiles, and senseless images. They wandered from God, till all traces of true religion must have been lost, had not the revelation of the gospel prevented it. For whatever may be pretended, as to the sufficiency of man’s reason to discover Divine truth and moral obligation, or to govern the practice aright, facts cannot be denied. And these plainly show that men have dishonoured God by the most absurd idolatries and superstitions; and have degraded themselves by the vilest affections and most abominable deeds.
I am not a Calvinist, I’m a Christian, I keep telling you that. BTW you appear to have a faulty understanding of Calvinism if you think it allows room for a man to reject Christ and still be saved.
It is not the case that the success of Christianity was due to Constantine’s politically expedient acceptance of it. How did a Roman Emperor know about the religion you seem to consider an insignificant desert cult from faraway lands? Because Christianity was already turning the world upside down (Acts 17 v 6 KJV), in many different countries of the world, hundreds of years before Constantine was even born.
God does not demand worship on pain of death, He demands justice for crimes committed. Men are not doomed because they are not in the Church Choir, they are doomed for failing to repent of their lying, cheating, stealing, killing etc. Failing to give God His dues is just one more crime men commit, not the sole reason for the trouble they face.
If truth is anything, it must be eternal. What was essential truth yesterday must be so today as well, or it is not truth, it would then be only a flexible, malleable, relative thing which is not fit for man nor beast. It is a good thing that truth is ancient, for obvious reasons and the world would be a better place if more people followed ‘ancient’ truths.
I did not call those who disagree with me troublemakers, you are being a naughty boy in saying that I did. I said that those persons who call themselves Christian and are clearly no such thing are troublemakers. These are the people who demand rewrites and edits of God’s words to make them more acceptable to themselves, when they should realise that it is they who need ‘editing’ in order to become acceptable to God.
I did not want your opinion on what a quasar IS, I wanted to know how you explain the bizarre readings given by Red Shift when observing them, particularly now you have rejected the idea of secondary radiation as a cause.
The question of the integrity of my mental faculties is not one I care to debate, mad-men scarcely realise that they are so and any denials from me will likely lead to calls of ‘See, you’re doing it now’. Suffice it to say that I am unaware of a person suffering from schizophrenia who devoted their lives to doing good, to helping others, to being as selfless as the Apostles were, or their great leader. I know of plenty of mentally ill persons who forgot to take their tablets and then knifed a little old lady. Either Peter and Paul (et al) always took their tablets or they were not mad.
Any wounds you may have inflicted are merely superficial, the blows only glancing. No licking required. As you appear keen on quotes on military leaders, try this one;
‘Veni, vidi, vici.’ Julius Caesar 47 BC (Guess what the ‘C’ stands for!)