And just to say, having to stay away from the blog for a bit while I sort out a backlog of other stuff in my life! Hope to be back soon...
I don't often say much about what I'm up to in the bigger scheme of things, so for anyone who's interested, I'm in the process of applying to join a radio ministry based in Bradford called Whistling Frog Productions, which seeks to create spiritually engaging and challenging material to air on mainstream commercial stations in the UK. I should have an interview this month, just waiting to hear...
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
.JPG)
kindling ideas
Mean streets of Bradford
Recent Comments
Blogs
- Valley boy
- The Long Walk Home
- The Freethought Cafe
- The Dole Brothers
- Strawmen Cometh
- Stephen Law
- St Silas Women
- Ruth Gledhill, Times Religion
- novus lumen
- Musings of a strange mind
- musings of a restless bishop
- Maths teacher goes to the movies
- lost horizons
- jgc::digital scrapbook
- Gadgetvicar
- Faith on fire
- digital journal
- creative tails
- church marketing sucks
- Billy's blog
33 comments:
Good luck... just try not to live in Bradford (or Yorkshire for that matter)
Lee
Good luck with the job. Out of interest, Lee, what's wrong with Bradford and Yorkshire?
Indeed Lee?! I know you have commented on this before, you might want to remind us all!
Thanks though for the good wishes, and I'll be back on the blog in due course...
Have you been to Bradford? Seen it? Tasted it?
Do I really need to say more?
OK... back a few steps.
I'm from Lancashire originally, born and (in)breed (and moved out when I could afford it - says alot)
So as a Lancastrian, I've no love for Yorkshire - you know they even think they won the War of the Roses?
BTW You do know how copper wire was invented?
Two Yorkshire men fighting over a two pence coin.
I did live in Leeds for 7 or 8 years - so Yorkshire isn't really all that bad, if you know where to go (M62 West)
But about Bradford... I hate the one-way system. I've wasted a long time getting lost in it too many times. Is that enough reason?
Also, it always rains there... or looks like it has.
And it really is just another northern English town (like Halifax just bigger) - no class - no culture - it has depression writen all over it. (Although they do have the museum of photography and film... I like that - but that is it.)
On the plus side though, they do have some GREAT curry houses... I miss a good curry.
Seriously though… Good luck, and enjoy yourself. Ignore this old Lancastrian.
Lee
Hi Lee, thanks for the fill in, and like the copper wire joke!
I don't think I'm under any illusions about Bradford, visited a few times; I know, for example, that currently there's a bit of a gaping hole where the town centre should be! That said, it has an interesting history, some nice old buildings in parts, an exciting multi-cultural feel and as you say great curry! And Leeds ain't far away - where I too lived for 9 months... Main reason I'd move there though, if it does work out, is for the radio ministry which has a lot going for it from my point of view...:)
Trust all is well down under in the summer sun...
Quick update Bruce- "Science and its Limits" finally arrived today, and I've already started scribbling in it with my pencil of Judgement. Expect a review up on my blog within the next week or two.
That's good to hear J - hope to get my copy soon too. I wouldn't expect it in itself to make you think 'Oh, now I see, I believe!'. It's from the 80s I think so doubtless there is more up to date stuff on science out there - Christian/religious as well as atheist; but from my reading - both of a couple of others in the series, and of your and fellow-atheists posts/comments, I do think that a fair and open-minded reading should make you think a little more deeply and carefully about science and religion and a possible relationship (one that goes beyond the frankly simple-minded and naive view - yes that is what I basically think about the basis of a lot of the atheist comments I've seen - that one has evidence and is testable, the other has/is not so only the first is true). The epistemology (theory of knowledge) one in the series is probably quite important groundwork; but anyway credit to you for getting hold of them and I look forward to your thoughts.
I might have stirred things a bit there... My Happy New Year still stands, for atheists too!
Bruce,
what about theology is testable? You keep telling us that god is not testable. So, how is science and theology on an equal footing - i find you comment to lack any understanding of what science is, and how faith does not fit its requirements.
I must say, I you seem to be ignoring everything we have said on the subject, so please show how faith is testable in a repeated and controlled way, or concede
Bruce-
"one has evidence and is testable, the other has/is not so only the first is true"
I don't think any of us have said something like that!
I would however to say that part of the problem might be that when we have asked you about your issues with this, rather than answer yourself you have merely said "go and read". (Now I know this is something I have said before!)
It is from the 80s originally, but there are some updates and new chapters (particularly one on Intelligent Design, which should be interesting).
(particularly one on Intelligent Design, which should be interesting).
Having followed ID, I'll be suprised if it has anything new to say.
ID is soooooo not science - it is a submission to personal ignorance.
ID makes no testable predictions - unless you count things like assuming all DNA must have a function. An assumption that has been refuted numerous times.
Hi Bruce, does your silence mean you concede?
You may be interested in this by the US National Academy of Sciences
http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf
Dont see how theology fits into this testable and reproducible framework. If you want to believe in god, you are not using the scientific method to do so.
Hi Billy, no my silence means I'm catching up with other stuff!:) I will re-enter the discussion at some stage soon when I can... I think we agree you can't use the scientific method to resolve religious issues and qs though maybe I haven't been very clear on this; I think they are basically like different languages, different ways of viewing reality. More another time.
Bruce-
"Religious issues and qs"
More detail needed. What do you mean by this?
Bruce, Your comment appeared to be on the possibility of a relationship between Science and religion
that one has evidence and is testable, the other has/is not so only the first is true)
I dont think we have ever said that!
I think you can use the scientific method on religion, and we seem to disagree on that. However, when you test religion it fails.
The problem is that you have no framework in place to back up theology - no real experience of the super natural - if it exists. Therefore, religious claims have no rational basis behind them as such.
It seems when we say you can test prayer, you refer to a book that is highly interpretive and its credentials for speaking on supernatural issues has not been validated. In fact, with out experience of the supernatural it is not possible to validate it.
Whether the supernatural is there or not is irrelevant, the point is that you have no means of verifying it exists.
Compare this to the claim that atoms exist and how we can co about validating the claim. Theology does not compare to the analytical and predictive power of science.
So, from what I see, there is no evident foundation to back up your claim, no foundation to believe that christianity is more real than belief in a super-supernatural realm that created your god.
If the supernatural does exist, and science really is limited in its ability to study it, I still have to contend that you have no knowlegde of a framework to validate your claims by.
Bruce-
My review of "Science & Its Limits" is up on my blog.
Bruce,
Trust all is well down under in the summer sun...
Beer is cold, and I've been watching cricket on the TV... love it thanks.
Lee
Hi Billy,
You may be interested in this by the US National Academy of Sciences
Thanks for the pdf... looks more my level.
Lee
Sounds idyllic Lee. Wish I cd join you and we cd talk about this God stuff properly. Maybe I'll commit a horrendous crime and become a convict. Actually no, those two don't quite tally do they?
Bruce,
I'm not sure how often you visit Jonathan blog, but I feel I need to take you to task over these repeaded allegations that we misrepresent christianity.
I have posted part of my response below
What are these misrepresentations you constantly talk about?
I guarantee that if we say some christians believe the earth is 6000 years old, it is because some christian somewhere has said it, so, we are not mirepresenting anything. What you appear to fail to realise is that christians themselves can not agree on the truth - not every christian agrees with you you know! So, what you are effectibvly saying is that other christians misrepresent what you believe, as you misrepresent what they believe. I think it is important that you grasp this - it has been mentioned several times and you continually ignore it. You even accused Jonathan or Lee of attacking a staw man, when they were actually specifically attacking a comment by Jimmy - something he believed to be true. So, are you saying that jimm'y christianity is a strawman - interesting, I then have to echo Lee and ask you how you can rationally distinguish?
Hi Billy, I suppose the misrepresentations/allegations that particularly bug me are more general ones aimed at Christian belief as a whole, eg that it is irrational, ignores evidence and what's there, doesn't think... Of course Christians engage in different levels of thought, as do atheists; but the quality of Christian thought that I've read, and to some extent do myself, utterly refutes the above notions. I wouldn't dream of making such blanket and unfounded assertions about atheism as I've seen by you guys about Christianity. Yes there are disagreements among Christians as among atheists, but for example, this common taunt that there is no rational way to distinguish truth, as between different faiths, is your assumption and needs careful exploring and unpacking - which I don't see you guys doing. A distinct lack of breadth, depth and subtlety of exploratory thought in my opinion.
By the way, I meant there, distinguish truth/error between different Christian positions.
Bruce-
"I think we agree you can't use the scientific method to resolve religious issues and qs though maybe I haven't been very clear on this; I think they are basically like different languages, different ways of viewing reality".
Like I said before- more detail needed. Which issues do you think science cannot address, given that you have stated that you think there is overlap between science and religion.
If what you're saying is that there IS a rational way to distinguish between different Christian positions, how do you do it?
Bruce, it is not a taunt to ask how you distinguish between different faiths, it is a genuine, valid and extremly important question.
With out being rude, I have seen no rational basis for belief in the supernatural, the moral, cosmological, ontological, scriptural and teleological arguments all fail to do that.
How for example does fine tuning of the universe arguments rationally demonstrate the supernatural - at the end of the day, the theist is expressing a personal opinion that this looks too improbable to be chance. He has not demonstrated that it is too improbable, he is just expressing an opinion. My view is more that we cant say one way or the other - it could be that this is the only possible way yo make a universe, it may not be. We simply do not know, so to argue that it is too complex is simply expressing an opinion, it is not a rational position that you can demonstrate beyond reasonable doubt.
The teleogical argument is even worse, and we can cite plenty of evidence against it.
The ontological argument is circular and highly subjective - eg, who defines perfection, what is it etc?
The moral argument, we have discussed - I hope you at least accept the possibility that nature can produce morality. The fact it may be hard to understand is not evidence of god - again, the theist is expressing an opinion, not a proof that an experiment can show.
The scriptural argument - well there is a problem, christians cant agree with themselves on much here, but historically, it is not sound - did you read philip's link? then you have messianic prophecies and their associated problems - I have mentioned Isaiah 7:14 a lot and how it is not about jesus - a typical christian response is that it serves a double duty - I've never seen anyone demonstrate this, and when you look at the qualities of Immanuel, they clearly do not point to jesus.
I think you should also pay attention to the context sometimes too. I was saying earlier on Brian's blog how a character called Devolved was irrational by trying to argue design, and then when cornered resorted to quoting the bible
https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=
6890785081186080960&post
ID=2355560372466854263
We also find it irrational when people say things like evolution does not occur simply because the bible says nothing about it and that's all they need to know (no mentioning names - cough -Jimmy). That's a bit like saying the world is supported by a giant tortoise because that's what the hindu's believe.
So pay attention to context too.
Look like some good qs from a glance. I'll get back to yous!
Bruce-
While I think of it, on my Sin or Selection post I explored the implications of evolution for the concept of Original Sin. You never really gave your thoughts on how our status as evolved beings affects our "sinful nature". I can't actually remember if you said that you actually "believe" in evolution. Since I have some ideas for new posts, I would appreciate your thoughts on this before too many discussions get started.
Hey Guys, glad to see the debate's back in full swing. If it strays into areas I'm equipped to debate in I'll contribute. In the meantime, here's a funny list of some of the worst things Christians have said online. I especially like, re evolution, "how come we can't speak monkey?"
http://209.85.165.104/search?q=cache:http%3A//www.fstdt.com/fundies/top100.aspx%3Farchive%3D1
Also finally saw the Golden Compass and will, despite my church-going, concede that the armoured polar bear voiced by Ian McKellan could give Aslan's ass.
Hi Ryan,
Lee was just saying he has actually debated a few folk in that list - like the guy who claims that the KJV is more accurate than the original hebrew - scary
Billy wrote:
Lee was just saying he has actually debated a few folk in that list
Yep, the Christian Forum is a great place; great mix of views… even Christians there call the Fundamentalists “nutters” sometimes. Though I have to say the top 100 list is a bit of a cherry pick from what little I have read. I noticed one name from CF that I would not classify as a fundamentalist nutter, but his quote seems like he is.
Anyway, I should also try and dig out a reply I got from a certain RichardT on the Christian Forum – I was in a “debate” with him where he was arguing that the Earth is static and the sun (and universe) are orbiting it.
When I (and others) asked how he explained stellar parallax or the phrases of Venus – you should have seen his answers (complete rubbish, all have been shown to be false since they cannot explain observations.)
He then summarised his position with a statement something like “When bible disagrees with science, then science is wrong”
Maybe it is already in the list – it is a classic quote. All think it; otherwise they could not be a fundamentalist could they?
Lee
Personally I do find it sad when people use Christianity as an excuse to avoid critical thinking. I certainly do not see altering my sexual behaviour (for example) as a prerequisite for attending St.Silas and partaking in Communion. Disagreeing with sermons (assuming that one isn't just disagreeing for the sake of it)is perfectly consistent with the historical spirit of protestantism.
Hi Bruce,
Is it me or this blog has gone a little quiet?
How's the job hunt in Bradford going? Keeping you busy?
Lee
Lee
I was thinking the same!
Are you and Billy still keeping up the debating elsewhere?
Hi Ryan,
I was thinking the same!
Are you and Billy still keeping up the debating elsewhere?
Oh yes... I wander over many places, but at the moment I'm mainly found at Jonathan's blog: Musings of a strange mind (there is a link on Bruce’s frontpage)
http://musingsofastrangemind.blogspot.com/
Have spent sometime “over the pond” at JC’s place at: The Freethought Cafe - (Again link on frontpage - though it has gone quiet, I think he’s busy else where)
http://cafefreethought.blogspot.com/
I’ve also got myself into a bit of a philosophy debate at Brian’s place: Philosophical neuron (what no link Bruce?) at
http://philosophicalneuron.blogspot.com/
They are all atheist owners just so you know, but friendly folk (Bruce has comment regularly on at least the first two – not sure about the last)
Well, that’s England, Scotland, America and Australia blogs covered – not bad I think.
Hope to see you around, if not here – somewhere else. At least until Bruce feels better and writes a thread to "fires up" the old keyboard. Just like in the good old days.
Lee
Post a Comment