The thankful natives of America

This dialogue follows that posted Thursday, March 20

From Joe to Moristotle

"How does God explain anything?" God is the uncaused First Cause. I don't see how science can explain the beginning of the universe. In fact, the law of cause an effect and the law of entropy seem to point to a creator showing the universe has a definite beginning and something caused it. I of course believe that God caused it.

Science cannot explain the irreducible complexity of the human eye. Darwin himself said: To suppose that the eye, with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree possible. – Origin of Species [p. 155]

Fanatic religionists just show that the world is full of hate. Hateful people operate under the guise of a religion. Religion is also responsible for good causes: Salvation Army helps millions of people; City Union Mission in Kansas City helps homeless people and is run by local churches; countless other services including shelters, food pantries, home building, etc. are led by religious groups. You cannot lump religious people in with all the people doing bad things in the name of religion.

"And morality doesn't depend on God either." What does morality depend on, then? Society? If it feels good, do it? What is right for you may not be right for me?....this doesn't work. How did you discipline your children when they were growing up? Wouldn't you just say, sure, kid do whatever you want?

From Moristotle to Joe

Joe, forgive me, but I had to smile at "the uncaused First Cause," for those are just empty words, signifying no meaningful intellectual content. The "law of cause and effect and the law of entropy" certainly point to no such thing as a creator! I suspect you've been reading too many religious tracts.

Your passage from Darwin was quoted out of context. That was a rhetorical passage to emphasize how marvelous indeed it is that natural selection did bring about the marvelous mechanism of the human eye.

Yes, not all religious people are bad, of course not. And churches, synagogues, and mosques do provide useful charitable services. Unfortunately, these activities are used as evidence that religious dogmas are true, and that is invalid. And neither, of course, do evil religious activities prove that religious dogmas are false.

But here's what I said: "We'd all be much better off without the magical thinking and parochial arrogance characteristic of religion." That arrogance leads to something that even "good" religionists think is beneficial: evangelical proseletyizing, going out to be "missionaries." The natives of North, Central, and South America, were just tickled pink for the Europeans to come over and slaughter them if they didn't let themselves be baptized....

Here's the kind of answer to your morality challenge that I think you (as a Bible believer) can appreciate: You don't agree with some of the moral rules of, say, Leviticus 20 or Numbers 15. On what basis do you disagree? I agree with you that, of course, responsibile parents don't tell (or let) their children to do whatever they want. But responsible parents can know that without having had anything whatsoever to do with religion.

Have you made much of a study yet (if you intend to) of the many personal disclosures I've made on this blog that bear on my now being an atheist? I don't intend to repeat myself unnecessarily. I say as much as I have here because our interchange will make a good sequel on my blog to the interchange I posted on Thursday. Friday's post, by the way (a quotation from Bertrand Russell), seemed pertinent to your challenges to this particular sceptic me. Thanks for providing the occasion for that one of Lord Russell's observations.