Fry-ing my brain

I have nothing against Stephen Fry. I don't enjoy any of his TV programmes but I have no beef with those who do. It's opinion, subjective to each person to his and hers own personality.

However I take great issue with his recent comments about God. 

This argument is often trotted out and it's falls very quickly and easily and here is how - You cannot make a moralistic judgement on anything without a undisputed set of absolute right and wrongs to stand on.

If you ask most unbelievers the rather difficult question of where morality has come from you'll, in my experience, get one of these answers:

'Morality evolved' - this is scary because it means that nothing is absolutely wrong, only wrong at that stage of it's evolution. Rape and murder could have been okay in the past and could be okay in the future.

'We make our own morals' - This is subjectivity of the highest order and not the good kind such as whether we prefer to watch QI or Have I Got News For You on the Dave channel. If we make our own morals we cannot be angry at anyone else because they have a different set of morals. If someone punched me in the face I couldn't be upset because it might not be wrong to them even if it is to me.

'Morality is defined by society' - this has the same issues as both of the above two.

Morality is such an evidence for God because it definitely exists yet there is no reasonable explanation for it's existence outside of a Higher Power. Without God we are simply like animals, it's dog eat dog and the fittest will win. Cats don't feel guilty after killing a mouse and if there is no God why should we feel guilty about anything we do?

Without a Higher Power, morality is subjective as no one persons opinion is bigger than another. However a Higher Power's, who is described as Holy, Perfect and All Loving,  moral judgements are bigger and there is none that can compete.

In fact, the much envied British justice and legal system is actually built upon the Bible, most of our law stems from the Ten Commandments or Biblical principles which are usually always based upon fairness to all.

God is Good and Has all knowledge and wisdom whilst loving all He has made. He made everything, including a perfect morality which we can never keep up with but can only live up to with the grace of God Himself, shown so amazingly through Jesus Christ on the cross dying for our sins so we could be reconciled to Him.

If you have no grounds for moral belief, you cannot even define the words 'evil' and 'monstrous' let alone accuse someone of it. Often people will use the wipeouts of entire groups of people in the Old Testament as an excuse to say God is evil. These groups were far worse than IS, some of them sacrificed children, and there isn't many people who think IS shouldn't be wiped out.
Some say that God was cruel letting Christ die for our sins, I'll let you in on a secret. God was Christ and He chose to do it. Because He loved us that much.

God is only one with the character to justify the creation of morality. Morality is unchanging, immaterial and universal, just like God and nothing else could account for those aspects.

The other thing that irks me is this idea that everything on earth should be perfect. Fry mentions insects that burrow through eyes etc. Anyone with an ounce of knowledge of Christian belief would know the Bible pretty much begins with the corruption of the whole world and ends with the promise of a perfect new heaven and new earth for (the Bible describes it as a place with no more tears) those who have simply acknowledged their own sin and accepted the grace of God offered through Christ. God never said that our world as it is now is perfect and Christians would never claim that.

It's amusing how often people such as Fry and Richard Dawkins criticise God whilst showing a complete lack of understanding of Him. It's sad how many people think that what they are saying is great.

I pray that Stephen Fry, Richard Dawkins and everyone else can join me in the world with 'no tears' on the great and glorious day.

Blessings,

Michael

The Question of Morality

This is a follow up to my recent blog post on the issue of morality. It is an interview between a Christian journalist and the prominent atheist Richard Dawkins.


“What defines your morality?” I asked with genuine curiosity. 

There was an extended pause as Dawkins considered the question carefully. “Moral philosophic reasoning and a shifting zeitgeist.” He looked off and then continued. 

“We live in a society in which, nowadays, slavery is abominated, women are respected, children can’t be abused—all of which is different from previous centuries.” 

He leaned forward as he warmed to his subject. 

“I’m actually rather interested in the shifting zeitgeist. If you travel anywhere in the Western world, you find a consensus of opinion which is recognizably different from what it was only a matter of a decade or two ago. You and I are both a part of that same zeitgeist, and [as to where] we get our moral outlook, one can almost use phrases like ‘it’s in the air.’” 

At this point, perhaps a word of explanation is necessary. Zeitgeist is a German word meaning “spirit of the age.” Dawkins here refers to the prevailing moral climate or mood of a given place or time. We may observe that what constitutes moral or ethical behavior differs from one culture to another; indeed, it may even differ within a given culture. This is not in dispute. The question, rather, is this: should moral standards be based on the societal zeitgeist or should they look beyond it to something else? 

I asked an obvious question: “As we speak of this shifting zeitgeist, how are we to determine who’s right? If we do not acknowledge some sort of external [standard], what is to prevent us from saying that the Muslim [extremists] aren’t right?” 

“Yes, absolutely fascinating.” His response was immediate. “What’s to prevent us from saying Hitler wasn’t right? I mean, that is a genuinely difficult question. But whatever [defines morality], it’s not the Bible. If it was, we’d be stoning people for breaking the Sabbath.” 

I was stupefied. He had readily conceded that his own philosophical position did not offer a rational basis for moral judgments. His intellectual honesty was refreshing, if somewhat disturbing on this point. 

Dawkins proceeded to cite the abolition of slavery and the civil rights movement as examples of Western moral advancements, but would not credit Christianity in the slightest. 

“Now you have to remember where I am from,” I objected. “Birmingham, Alabama—the home of the civil rights movement. Many there would argue that the Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr., was motivated by his Christian convictions. And what of William Wilberforce?” 

But Dawkins would have none of it.


The really interesting bit I have put in italics. It proves that if you do not believe in God, literally anything can go. There is no morality except what someone decides personally. But then that means things such as genocide, murder and rape are not wrong because it's all down to personal preference. But we know these things are wrong and the one true level of morality for all mankind, from God, declares them wrong. No matter what Joe Bloggs thinks.


This interview also shows Dawkins irrational opinions on Christianity, which makes a mockery of his credibility on this issue.

Testimony - Alistair McGrath

Found this testimony/criticism of Dawkins online today and wanted to share it as I found it encouraging and very true.

"He is a 'psychotic delinquent', invented by mad, deluded people. And that's one of Dawkins's milder criticisms.


Dawkins, Oxford University's Professor for the Public Understanding of Science, is on a crusade.


His salvo of outrage and ridicule is meant to rid the world of its greatest evil: religion. "If this book works as I intend," he says, "religious readers who open it will be atheists when they put it down." But he admits such a result is unlikely. "Dyed-in-the-wool faith-heads" (that's people who believe in God) are "immune to argument", he says.


I have known Dawkins for more than 20 years; we are both Oxford professors. I believe if anyone is "immune to argument" it is him. He comes across as a dogmatic, aggressive propagandist.


Of course, back in the Sixties, everyone who mattered was telling us that religion was dead. I was an atheist then. Growing up as a Protestant in Northern Ireland, I had come to believe religion was the cause of the Province's problems. While I loved studying the sciences at school, they were important for another reason: science disproved God. Believing in God was only for sad, mad and bad people who had yet to be enlightened by science.


I went up to Oxford to study the sciences in 1971, expecting my atheism to be consolidated. In the event, my world was turned upside down. I gave up one belief, atheism, and embraced another, Christianity. Why? There were many factors. For a start, I was alarmed by some atheist writings, which seemed more preoccupied with rubbishing religion than seeking the truth.


Above all, I encountered something at Oxford that I had failed to meet in Northern Ireland - articulate Christians who were able to challenge my atheism. I soon discovered two life-changing things.


First, Christianity made a lot of sense. It gave me a new way of seeing and understanding the world, above all, the natural sciences. Second, I discovered Christianity actually worked: it brought purpose and dignity to life.


I kept studying the sciences, picking up a PhD for research in molecular biophysics. But my heart and mind had been seduced by theology. It still excites me today.


Dawkins and I both love the sciences; we both believe in evidence-based reasoning. So how do we make sense of our different ways of looking at the world? That is one of the issues about which I have often wished we might have a proper discussion. Our paths do cross on the television networks and we even managed to spar briefly across a BBC sofa a few months back. We were also filmed having a debate for Dawkins's recent Channel 4 programme, The Root Of All Evil? Dawkins outlined his main criticisms of God, and I offered answers to what were clearly exaggerations and misunderstandings. It was hardly rocket science.


For instance, Dawkins often compares belief in God to an infantile belief in Santa Claus or the Tooth Fairy, saying it is something we should all outgrow. But the analogy is flawed. How many people do you know who started to believe in Santa Claus in adulthood?


Many people discover God decades after they have ceased believing in the Tooth Fairy. Dawkins, of course, would just respond that people such as this are senile or mad, but that is not logical argument. Dawkins can no more 'prove' the non-existence of God than anyone else can prove He does exist.


Most of us are aware that we hold many beliefs we cannot prove to be true. It reminds us that we need to treat those who disagree with us with intellectual respect, rather than dismissing them - as Dawkins does - as liars, knaves and charlatans.


But when I debated these points with him, Dawkins seemed uncomfortable. I was not surprised to be told that my contribution was to be cut.


The Root Of All Evil? was subsequently panned for its blatant unfairness. Where, the critics asked, was a responsible, informed Christian response to Dawkins? The answer: on the cutting-room floor.


The God Delusion is similarly full of misunderstanding. Dawkins simply presents us with another dogmatic fundamentalism. Maybe that's why some of the fiercest attacks on The God Delusion are coming from other atheists, rather than religious believers. Michael Ruse, who describes himself as a 'hardline Darwinian' philosopher, confessed that The God Delusion made him 'embarrassed to be an atheist'.


The dogmatism of the work has attracted wide criticism from the secularist community. Many who might be expected to support Dawkins are trying to distance themselves from what they see as an embarrassment.


Aware of the moral obligation of a critic of religion to deal with this phenomenon at its best and most persuasive, many atheists have been disturbed by Dawkins's crude stereotypes and seemingly pathological hostility towards religion. In fact, The God Delusion might turn out to be a monumental own goal - persuading people that atheism is just as intolerant as the worst that religion can offer."

Source : http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-433628/Do-stop-behaving-God-Professor-Dawkins.html?fb_ref=LikeButtonBottom&fb_source=profile_oneline

Misconceptions - Who created God?

"“Who created the creator?”  presents us with the philosophical dilemma of the infinitely regressing series of creators. Ultimately, both Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens (and perhaps Jerry Coyne also), base their denial of a Creator on the assumption that there is no answer to this question and we are therefore stuck with a naturalistic beginning. In other words, even though they admit that everything I have said up until now might be perfectly sensible or at least worthy of consideration, this particular philosophical question leaves us with no choice but to accept, that despite the utter improbability of a natural emergence of life it happened at least once because here we are. In the final analysis, the atheist denial of God is based not on science, but on philosophy. In fact, there is a rather elementary and obvious solution to the dilemma of who created the creator."


"Simply put, the philosophical dilemma of the infinitely regressing chain of creators is only applicable to a material being, not a transcendent being that exists in neither time nor space."


Source:  http://christian-apologetics.org/2011/rabbi-moshe-averick-the-theist-holds-the-intellectual-high-ground/

I'd like to refer to the Kalam Argument (William Lane Craig's version)

The Kalam Cosmological Argument:

• Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
• The universe began to exist.
• Therefore, the universe has a cause.  

Something has to have caused the existence of the world! Something has to have always been there, something has to have not been created but have been there eternally and ignited the existence of everything we know and see around us.

I would suggest that a Creator God is the most sensible of any possibility for an eternal being. Having met this God personally and seen Him change my life, and the lives of people around me. I would suggest He is definitely the eternal being that put the Universe into existence.

Misconceptions - 4. God is Evil

When I am debating Atheists I find that, when you dispelled all of their 'scientific' reasons why God doesn't exist (one such  reason being Evolution) they turn to the character of God & why suffering happens. Whilst I covered suffering a few weeks ago twice. I haven't covered the strange Atheist argument that God is Evil.

This opinion is most famously expressed by Richard Dawkins in his widely seeling book 'The God Delusion':-


'the God of the Old Testament is...petty, unjust, vindictive, bloodthirsty, misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal...'


My first thought on reading it this is that Dawkins has clearly not read the Bible! I think this quote pleases Atheists and riles Christians not because it is true, but because it is a blatant lie being propagated as truth.

Rabbi Moshe Averick (a Jewish rabbi would know the Old Testament very well) in his new book 'Nonsense of High Order' responds to this as such:-

'Can an intellectually honest and open minded person ignore the fact that this same deity commands the Israelites not to take revenge or bear a grudge, to view the use of inaccurate weights in business as an abomination, to view all human beings as created in the image of God, to open our hands wide to those in poverty, not to oppress the stranger who lives among us, to leave a portion of every field unharvested for the poor, never go to war against an enemy without first offering peace, that "justice, justice shall your pursue", to "love your neighbor as yourself"?


Atheists will bring up passages where God has commanded that certain acts will be condemned by death with some of them being seen as particularly harsh in today's world. But the problem for them is this:-

1. Context - what may be harsh today may have been perfectly reasonable when commanded. Also, Old Testament commandments were fulfilled in Jesus so that Grace comes by following Him not these laws. God knows the context of today too!
2. Morality - How can argue with God about His morality? HE invented morality!?! He invented Justice! You could say that instead you are arguing with Christians about God's morality, but the problem there is how you do account for the existence of morality without the existence of a higher power? No answer I have ever seen has been anywhere near satisfactory and often have Atheists declaring that rape etc. is okay if someone decides it is.
3. Attitude - the Israelites never just decided to kill off a group. The groups that were killed off were groups practicing child sacrifice and other detestable things which God hated and wanted gone.

Ephesians 2:4-5

But because of his great love for us, God, who is rich in mercy, made us alive with Christ even when we were dead in transgressions—it is by grace you have been saved.

1 John 4:10
This is love: not that we loved God, but that he loved us and sent his Son as an atoning sacrifice for our sins.

God is not evil, He all-powerful, all-knowing, all-loving and all-amazing! 

Misconceptions - 2. Evolution disproves God

This morning when I was driving to work I saw a fish symbol on the back of someones car - except with a difference. This fish had 'Darwin' written in the middle of it and also had two legs...inferring the concept of Evolution, that we have a common ancestor and evolved through time to become what we are now.

Personally, I disagree with Evolution because of one simple fact...there is no proof that any specie has ever evolved into another specie. There are two types of Evolution, micro and macro. Micro is species changing but remaining one specie. This accounts for the variety in many animals such as cats & dogs but not for how human beings or cats and dogs themselves came into being. (Genesis 30:25-43 describes this kind of evolution happening in Jacob's flock).

However, I do understand that some Christians accept Evolution and actually that doesn't bother me too much because...

Evolution does not explain the origin of life


For Evolution to work, life already has to be there to evolve. People who do not understand this issue tend to assume that Evolution is how life began when that is not even what any well educated Evolutionist would argue.

What I am saying is that even if we evolved, God is still a explanation for life's origin. These Christians would argue that Evolution is part of God's plan. However, as I have written already, I have serious reservations regarding Evolution.

So is there any alternative Scientific explanations for the origin of life?

I wrote about the dearth of knowledge and fact in this area the other day but let's see what a few major Atheist scientists say courtesy of Rabbi Moshe Averick's book, Nonsense of a High Order.

Dr Stuart Kauffman - 'We do not, in fact, know how or where life started...clearly none of theories are adequate'

Dr Richard Dawkins - 'but how did the whole process start?...nobody knows how it happened.

Dr Chris Willis - 'the biggest gap in Evolutionary theory remains the origin of life itself'

Dr Stanley Miller and Dr Leslie Orgel - 'It must be admitted from the beginning that we do not know how life began.'

Dr Robert Shapiro - 'The difference between a mixture of simple chemicals and a bacterium is much more profound than the gulf between a bacterium and an elephant.'

Dr Christopher McKay - 'The origin of life remains a scientific mystery...we do not know how life originated on the earth'.

I am confident enough in God to say that these guys will never find an explanation of how life could have occurred without God, because God created everything we stand/sit on today. Praise Him Indeed!

Hahaha

I am throughly enjoying my new book - 'Nonsense of a High Order - The Confused and Illusory World of the Atheist' by Rabbi Moshe Averick. (I highly recommend getting this book to Christians, interested Agnostics & truth seeking Atheists alike) The ideas that people such as Dawkins & Hitchens has brought up have been condemned to the trash by Averick and I wonder if they'll ever respond to this book and would be interested if they did, for this book is very very good in its criticism and its own ideas.

One thing, at the end of a chapter, Averick linked to is this, it made me laugh!

http://www.us.net/life/

On this website they offer a prize of $50,000 a year for the next 20 years for anyone who can propose a 'highly plausible mechanism for the spontaneous rise of genetic instructions in nature sufficient to gave rise to life. To win, the explanation must be consistent with empirical biochemical, kinetic, and thermodynamic concepts...and be published in a well-respected, peer-reviewed science journal'.

No 'highly plausible' explanation has been presented for the naturalistic origin of life. The evidence all points to a supernatural creator and once Scientists stop making assumptions that there is no God and start testing assumptions like they are supposed to then maybe they will find something they didn't want to find and thought they never could.

If you do have a highly plausible explanation, go and enjoy the $50,000 a year for the next 20 years!