tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post493602608436359718..comments2022-06-10T22:26:42.828-05:00Comments on Looking In The Distance: What's So Great About Christianity?Unknownnoreply@blogger.comBlogger14125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-69579762498178567732010-08-31T13:13:40.036-05:002010-08-31T13:13:40.036-05:00Thank you for this post on D'Souza's book....Thank you for this post on D'Souza's book. I was recently debating whether to read it or not and your post piqued my interest. <br /><br />As for Christianity being a problem, I think I usually answer it based on D'Souza's answer of the new atheism being clothed in morality. People accuse Christianity of being a violent religion, or at the very least a justification for a lot CJ Dateshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09472151062672810541noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-15187705263700440962007-11-30T11:34:00.000-05:002007-11-30T11:34:00.000-05:00AMC:I agree with your interesting comment on D'Sou...AMC:<BR/><BR/>I agree with your interesting comment on D'Souza's opinion of sex and atheism.<BR/><BR/>You might read Christopher Hitchens' latest book <A HREF="http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Atheist-Essential-Readings-Nonbeliever/dp/0306816083/ref=pd_bbs_sr_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1196439559&sr=8-1" REL="nofollow"> The Portable Atheist</A> in which he accuses theism of a similar hang up with sex.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-60941153544709300622007-11-29T20:31:00.000-05:002007-11-29T20:31:00.000-05:00DM:Even weaker was the chapter entitled ‘Opiate of...DM:<BR/><BR/>Even weaker was the chapter entitled ‘Opiate of the Morally Corrupt’ in which I lost all my good impressions of D’Souza up to that point. I couldn’t believe it when I read:<BR/><BR/><I>It is chiefly because of sex that most contemporary atheists have chosen to break with Christianity. “Th worst feature of the Christian religion,” Bertrand Russell wrote in ‘Why I Am Not a Christian,Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-76489502934997671862007-11-29T09:36:00.000-05:002007-11-29T09:36:00.000-05:00DM:In my view the weakest chapter was on "Pascal a...DM:<BR/>In my view the weakest chapter was on "Pascal and the Reasonableness of Faith". To argue that one ought to back something (i.e. belief in God) in the case it might turn out to be right does not strike me as a strong argument for such a belief. If I followed this thought I wouldn't get on an airplane because if it crashes that might be the end of me.<BR/><BR/>JoanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-34445666729400736152007-11-28T11:39:00.000-05:002007-11-28T11:39:00.000-05:00DM:Here is another link to The Spinning Dancer Ill...DM:<BR/><BR/>Here is another link to <A HREF="http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,22535838-5012895,00.html" REL="nofollow">The Spinning Dancer Illusion.</A> with some explanation of the phenomenon or would Kant have me say 'noumenon'?<BR/><BR/>Regards,<BR/>MichaelAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-9039875145348936492007-11-28T11:27:00.000-05:002007-11-28T11:27:00.000-05:00Good discussion!I enjoyed this book. Nice thing e...Good discussion!<BR/><BR/>I enjoyed this book. Nice thing each chapter seems to be stand alone like a separate essay on each topic. <BR/><BR/>His summary of Kant and the limits of reason was well summarized and everytime I see <A HREF="http://www.maniacworld.com/Spinning-Silhouette-Optical-Illusion.html" REL="nofollow">The Spinning Dancer Illusion</A> I know the truth of what Kant said. Take Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-61277868124432834652007-11-27T21:31:00.000-05:002007-11-27T21:31:00.000-05:00I loved the comment that Dawkins et al are members...I loved the comment that Dawkins et al are members of the “Church of Infinite Universes” and that for scientists to abolish one unobservable God it takes an infinite number of unobservable universes.<BR/><BR/>Priceless<BR/>JoanAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-32250751564176580012007-11-27T07:58:00.000-05:002007-11-27T07:58:00.000-05:00The chapter on the anthropic principle was well do...The chapter on the anthropic principle was well done even though I think the puzzlement over the apparent fine-tuning of the universe is a bit of a red herring. I like the argument that you gave, Michael, in an earlier thread where you said in the thread “Has Science Buried God”:<BR/><BR/><I>I have been wondering about the fine tuning argument which supposedly supports theism by arguing that if Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-1441135941020531382007-11-26T07:15:00.000-05:002007-11-26T07:15:00.000-05:00PhilE.O. Wilson has an article in the New Scienti...Phil<BR/><BR/>E.O. Wilson has an article in the <A HREF="http://www.newscientist.com/channel/opinion/dn8254.html" REL="nofollow"> New Scientist</A> entitled “Can Biology Do Better Than Faith” in which he writes:<BR/><BR/><I>In the more than slightly schizophrenic circumstances of the present era, global culture is divided into three opposing images of the human condition. The dominant one, Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-87244905896899168602007-11-26T06:53:00.000-05:002007-11-26T06:53:00.000-05:00Derek:Agree with what you write. Atheists knock t...Derek:<BR/><BR/>Agree with what you write. Atheists knock theists as being irrational and acting on faith alone when both are incorrect as I indicated earlier. John’s Gospel says that in the beginning was the “Word”. I would bet that most atheists and many theists, including our own Christian compatriots do not realize that “Word” refers to “logos” which is a Greek term that includes the Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-89027821717134009542007-11-26T06:38:00.000-05:002007-11-26T06:38:00.000-05:00PhilAs a scientist I was impressed by his excellen...Phil<BR/><BR/>As a scientist I was impressed by his excellent arguments on the theological roots of science. I was not aware of Augustine’s arguments on the infinite regression problem and whether time extends infinitely into the past and Augustine’s solution that God created time at the same ‘time’ that He created the universe. Thus God stands outside of time and that this is what is meant by Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-83252462085969012332007-11-25T09:07:00.000-05:002007-11-25T09:07:00.000-05:00I think he is mistaken, however, when he quotes Pa...I think he is mistaken, however, when he quotes Paul <BR/><BR/><I><B>“For the good that I would, I do not, but the evil which I would not, that I do.”</I></B> <BR/><BR/>and says that in this single phrase Paul repudiates the classical tradition founded by Plato. He says that for Plato the problem of evil is knowledge and people do wrong because they do not know what is right. He says that Paul Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-66164683283440941632007-11-25T08:56:00.000-05:002007-11-25T08:56:00.000-05:00Phil: Good points. I like how he brings the ques...Phil: Good points. I like how he brings the question of separation of church and state back to its roots, not in the Enlightenment but as an early Christian idea originating in Matthew 22:21 where we read: “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesar’s and to God that which is God’s”. <BR/><BR/>I also agree with his argument that “the separation of church and state in the U.S.A. has become Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1747503782613986319.post-86379722406261152982007-11-25T07:24:00.000-05:002007-11-25T07:24:00.000-05:00D’Souza is a great intellect – I think at one time...D’Souza is a great intellect – I think at one time was with National Review magazine – perhaps he still is?<BR/><BR/>In the great atheist/theist debate that is raging at the moment there are three good theist polemicists; Alister McGrath, John Lennox, and Dinesh D’Souza. <BR/><BR/>McGrath comes at theism from a theological perspective; Lennox from a strong mathematical and science perspective; Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com