That pretty much does it for any material harm that Sternberg may have suffered -- quite simply, there was none...In the end, the appendix attached to the Souter report not only fails to support any of the report's conclusions, it directly contradicts them. Sternberg suffered no harm as a result of the row he created when he inappropriately published the Meyer paper. Indeed, the emails paint a picture of the staff doing what they could to accommodate him in spite of a long history of causing problems, both with his mishandling of the collections and library materials and his bad editorial practices.________________
"Today there is talk of secular thought, secular morality, secular science, secular politics." A concept that must be rejected because it is based on "an unreligious vision of life, thought and morality: in other words a vision in which there is no room for God, for a Mystery that transcends pure reason, for a moral law of absolute value that is in effect all the time and in every situation."He's sweating a bit, methinks, because of the accelerating trend to split church from state in the EU, and the increasing reality of "a post-Christian Europe":
Many of the new EU states were among the strongest voices in the unsuccessful effort to add a mention of God or Christianity in the EU constitution, which was effectively mothballed after rejection last year by voters in France and the Netherlands. The EU hopes to restart the ratification process, with some officials setting a target of 2008...Ah, don't sweat it, Pontiff, we don't blame you. Well, at least some of us don't.
In Greece, the head of the powerful Greek Orthodox Church, Archbishop Christodoulos, said he would not object to a "velvet separation" between church and state, which would allow the church to retain its tax breaks and other privileges but would eliminate clergy from presiding at official events such as the swearing-in of political leaders...
Anglican clergy in Britain — where the crown is the nominal head of the Church of England — have been steadily dropping the practice of including prayers for the monarch in another small but noticeable crack in the church-state structure, which could come under further strains if Prince Charles takes the throne because of disputes over his divorce and remarriage...
Norway, which is not an EU member but has close economic ties with the bloc, opened hearings in April on whether to separate church and state after 469 years of Lutheranism as its official religion. A government panel recommended the split in January, but it could not happen until at least 2014 because of rules on changing the constitution. Neighboring Sweden ended its "official" Lutheran church in 2000...
"We are witnessing post-Christian Europe taking shape," said Jonathan Bartley, co-director of Ekklesia, a London-based group that examines religious and social trends. "The remaining alliances of religion and governments don't make sense anymore, in many people's eyes, and they are coming apart"...What may emerge in coming decades, experts say, is a greater presence of religious-oriented groups seeking to shape public policies as Europe becomes more culturally and religiously diverse.
I believe in Spinoza's God who reveals Himself in the orderly harmony of what exists, not in a God who concerns himself with fates and actions of human beings.He might best be described as a Deist, not a true Spinozan pantheist. His comment about "God does not play dice with the universe," was direct confirmation of both of these two things -- although we know now that Einstein was wrong about quantum physics. Einstein was also wrong about the cosmological constant in general relativity -- the universe does extrapolate backwards in time to a singularity. Too often theists overlook the fact that Einstein did make mistakes in science; would they concede, given his mistakes in his own field of expertise, that it is just as plausible, and more so, that he also made mistakes in this field so outside of the possibility of anyone's expertise (whether God exists or not)?
-- The quotation above may be Einstein's most familiar statement of his beliefs. These words are frequently quoted, but a citation is seldom given. The quotation can be found in Albert Einstein: Philosopher-Scientist edited by Paul Arthur Schilpp (The Open Court Publishing Co., La Salle, Illinois, Third Edition, 1970) pp. 659 - 660. There the source is given as the New York Times, 25 April 1929, p. 60, col. 4. Ronald W. Clark (pp. 413-414) [source]
HABERMAS: Once you mentioned to me that your view might be called Deism. Do you think that would be a fair designation?Now, what kind of response does Biola give this? Well, it dishonestly titles the interview, "Atheist Becomes Theist". This is a blatant lie. Period. From this intial interview, publication, and Biola lie, Flew "became a theist" in the media. In the aftermath of this conclusion, Flew was touted as a sort of victory object for the power of apologetics, and recently, for the power of ID.FLEW: Yes, absolutely right. What Deists, such as the Mr. Jefferson who drafted the American Declaration of Independence, believed was that, while reason, mainly in the form of arguments to design, assures us that there is a God, there is no room either for any supernatural revelation of that God or for any transactions between that God and individual human beings.
Judge John Jones swallowed this claim despite the many scientists and scholars outside of Christianity who have embraced ID (like British philosopher Antony Flew). They illustrate the obvious: A theory (ID) that makes no appeals to Scriptural authority, but instead bases its arguments on scientific evidence, is a theory that anyone from a deist to Deepak Chopra could embrace.Well, Disco Institute, sorry to hurt your feelings, but Dr. Flew then says,
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproduction. [January 2005]It was in fact abiogenesis, and not evolution, which led Dr. Flew to believe in something which had to seed the first forms of reproductive life on earth. He believed in some sort of "front-loading", like Krauze, not a guided evolution. It is for this reason Flew pointed out he did not believe in miracles, that evolution was sufficient to explain the diversity and complexity of life on earth...after the first reproducing form:
...the non-interfering God of the people called Deists--such as Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin.Flew admitted that he was ignorant of the scientific literature, and after speaking with Richard Carrier, who prodded Flew to examine it, he made the above confession. Flew does not dismiss the idea of a deity, but obviously admits that there is no need to invoke a deity to explain life's origins. He also holds no belief about an afterlife of any sort. For more, see here.
"I am just too old at the age of nearly 82 to initiate and conduct a major and super-radical controversy about the conceivability of the concept of God as a spirit." This would appear to be his excuse for everything: he won't investigate the evidence because it's too hard. Yet he will declare beliefs in the absence of proper inquiry. Theists would do well to drop the example of Flew. Because his willfully sloppy scholarship can only help to make belief look ridiculous.Flew put out a new preface to his book, before examining the evidence and the arguments, as he now admits, and calls himself "a fool" for doing, in which he states:
My own commitment then as a philosopher who was also areligious unbeliever was and remains that of Plato’s Socrates: “We must follow the argument wherever it leads.”Indeed, we must. And this is why Flew calls himself a fool--for declaring a position without seriously scrutinizing it. And I call myself one at times for the same reason. It seems that more recent developments have seen Flew reiterating his Deistic position. One point to bring up to people using both Flew and Einstein is that neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the common descent of all life via natural evolution. Neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the Big Bang. Neither man, possessing Deistic beliefs, denies the most basic principles of science, which falsify huge portions of the Bible and render the idea of a Resurrection laughable. Remember, Deism is a God removed from Its Creation, not one which steps in and tinkers and breaks the laws It set up.
"Maybe Christmas," he thought, "doesn't come from a store.The Grinch figured it out, but Falwell apparently hasn't. To Falwell, and millions of other apparently-retarded Americans, Christmas must come from a store, from the mouths of its clerks, from the logos and ads they use, and the commercialism inherent in it all.
"Maybe Christmas...perhaps...means a little bit more!"
Rather, pain and suffering are a means by which his redemptive wisdom, mercy, and justice are manifested to his rational creatures for the benefit of the elect...It doesn't. Rather, it enriches the life of the redeemed...I'll bullet list some questions, and you can answer Y/N to the numbers that correspond, such that my own "simplistic" misunderstandings can be corrected:
1. How can God be blameless in ordaining the Fall?It seems
2. How can God blame us for the consequences of the Fall?
The greater good defense is only designed to answer the first question, not the second.
An answer to the second question depends on your version of action theory; in this case, compatibilism.
The greater good defense is one plank of a broader theodicy.
In addition, even if he regards the Christian faith as incoherent, that in no way absolves him from discharging his own burden of proof.I'm still unsure as to how or when I supposedly did this.
It will hardly do for him to say, "Sure, I'm incoherent—but you're incoherent too!"Where and when did I say or show incoherence, or commit tu quoque?
ii) I do regard natural evil as a manifestation of divine judgment. But this ordinarily goes back to the Fall. It isn’t directly punitive with respect to any particular victim. But it is a general manifestation of divine judgment.Dave Amstrong is a prolific Catholic apologist, and his writings on the PoE are as extensive as any other topic he's addressed:
Dave's major argument is that Plantinga's free will theodicy "solves" the logical PoE. He has directed most of his posts towards establishing this, and I think he's done as much as anyone can do. I'm not saying (of course) that I think his effort correlates to success in solving this problem, but he has done a great job of attempting to solve it, at least.Christian Replies to the Argument From Evil (Free Will Defense): Is God Malevolent, Weak, or Non-Existent Because of the Existence of Evil and Suffering?
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ124.HTMAlvin Plantinga's Decisive Refutation of the Atheist Use of the Problem of Evil as a Disproof of God's Existence, Goodness, or Omnipotence (+ Discussion)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/alvin-plantingas-decisive-refutation.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116071794487746081/#116977Critique of Agnostic Ed Babinski's Post: "The Problem of Evil, Alvin Plantinga and Victor Reppert" (the "Emotional" Argument From Evil) (Dave Armstrong vs. Ed Babinski)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/critique-of-agnostic-ed-babinskis-post.htmlSerious Christian Treatments of the Problem of Evil and Breezy Atheist Dismissals of Them Sans Rational Argument (+ Discussion) (Dave Armstrong vs. John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/serious-christian-treatments-of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116042118212142615/#116612Some Christian Replies to the Problem of Evil as Set Forth by Atheists (+ Discussion) (Dave Armstrong vs. "drunken tune" and John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/some-christian-replies-to-problem-of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116046273013664968/#116725Dialogue #2 With an Atheist on the Problem of Evil (+ Discussion) (Dave Armstrong vs. "drunken tune")
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/dialogue-2-with-atheist-on-problem-of.html
http://www.haloscan.com/comments/davearmstrong/116060670288633022/#116870Dialogue #3 With an Atheist on the Problem of Evil (Dave Armstrong vs. John W. Loftus)
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/10/dialogue-3-with-atheist-on-problem-of.htmlCan God be Blamed for the Nazi Holocaust? Reflections on the "Problem of Evil" and Human Free Will
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/06/can-god-be-blamed-for-nazi-holocaust.htmlDialogue With an Atheist on the "Problem of Good" and the Nature of Meaningfulness in Atheism (+ Part Two) (The Flip Side of the Problem of Evil Argument Against Christianity)
(Dave Armstrong vs. Mike Hardie)
http://web.archive.org/web/20020810223936/ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ518.HTM +
http://web.archive.org/web/20011119015359/http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ519.HTMReasons for Suffering and Encouragement and Hope in the Midst of It: A Biblical Compendium
http://socrates58.blogspot.com/2006/03/reasons-for-suffering-encouragement.htmlComfort and Peace From Scripture
http://ic.net/~erasmus/RAZ188.HTM
WND's fatuous reporting________________
Posted: December 2, 2006, 1:00 a.m. Eastern
By Mike Newdow
Recently, WND published two articles concerning my lawsuit challenging the national motto: "God 'erased'? Suit could force city name changes" Nov. 22, and "Judge Moore files brief supporting 'In God We Trust'" Nov. 30. Because the accounts were quite misleading, I feel it is important to provide some clarification.
I'll begin by pointing to WND's view that government has to take one or another position vis-à-vis the existence of God, and that it is "technically impossible" to have "'the government treat everybody's religious views equally.'" If the government stops saying that we trust in God, it is argued, our nation will be espousing an atheistic worldview.
What nonsense! When Congress passes highway bills or makes appropriations for cancer research, it doesn't say God exists. Does WND believe that Congress, in those bills, is promoting an atheistic agenda? Similarly, in the motto and the pledge, the government doesn't say anything about Jesus' divinity. Why doesn't WND interpret that as taking the position that Jesus wasn't the son of God?
The reason is obvious: Those are ridiculous conclusions. In fact, to show just how ridiculous they are, one can apply the same logic in reverse. It can just as forcefully (and fatuously) be argued that because government doesn't DENY "His" existence, it's taking the position that God does exists, and that by failing to specify that Jesus was NOT the son of God, government is saying that he was.
It is not "technically impossible" at all for the government to treat everybody's religious views equally. On the contrary, it's very simple: Government needs only to stay out of the religion business – precisely as the Constitution demands. The problem is that our legislators have been favoring (Christian) monotheism for the last half century, and ending that favoritism appears (to those who have been its beneficiaries) to be "favoring" the atheists.
This appearance, of course, is illusory. No one claimed atheists were being favored from 1794-1864 (when none of our coins had "In God We Trust") or from 1892-1954 (when the Pledge did not contain the "under God" phrase). How could restoring the coins and the Pledge to their original neutral states be "favoring" atheists now?
WND's assertion that "Newdow has admitted that ... [he] ... wants to ... install his own belief system that does not acknowledge God" is similarly misleading. By focusing on the elimination of "acknowledgments" of God's existence, it is implied that it is atheism ("his own belief system") that I seek to have government endorse. But the fact is that if the government adhered to my atheistic views and claimed that God is a myth, I would demand the elimination of that assertion as well. The "belief system" I'm striving to uphold is the one based on equality, not on any religious opinion – including my own. The real question is not why I am fighting for that "belief system" (i.e., equality), but why others are fighting against it.
That I'm for "[b]anning references to God or Christianity in the public sphere" is yet another bogus contention. Let me be clear on this: I want God and Christianity in the public sphere. In fact, if any people ever find government interfering with their rights to enter the public sphere and proclaim what they believe is God's or Jesus' glory, they can count on me for assistance. If any government employee is castigated for bringing a Bible to work, or any child is prohibited from praying in school, please call me up so that I can help put an end to such unconstitutional and abusive governmental activity. But the right of individuals and groups to voice their own religious opinions is very different from the "right" to have the government join them in their endeavors. In fact, that posited "right" is no right at all; it is precisely what the Establishment Clause prohibits. In other words, when it comes to religious issues, that "public sphere" belongs only to the public, not the government. As Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia has written, "The government may not … lend its power to one or the other side in controversies over religious … dogma." Surely the question of the existence of God is such a controversy.
Many individuals who strongly believe in God – such as the 33 named Jewish and Christian clergy who wrote a brief in support of my position when the Pledge case went to the Supreme Court – understand that the constitutional principles underlying this view protect us all. If America in the future has a Muslim, or a Buddhist, or ("God forbid") an atheistic majority, it is the position I'm advocating, not that of my opponents, that will protect the remaining Christians.
It is ironic that the first of the WND articles was written on Nov. 22. That's the day on which John F. Kennedy was assassinated in 1963. Kennedy, it may be recalled, was the first Catholic president. His election undoubtedly would have astounded those white, male Protestant Christians who founded our nation, for they lived in an era where anti-Catholic animus was little different from the anti-atheism of today. During his campaign for the presidency, Kennedy addressed the American Society of Newspaper Editors, stating, "I strongly support … the guarantees of religious equality provided by the First Amendment; and I ask only that these same guarantees be extended to me." The editors of WND, as they report the news to their readers, might wish to focus on those magnificent guarantees rather than on nonsensical and misleading assertions that divert attention from what is truly at issue.
Mike Newdow currently has cases in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals challenging "In God We Trust" as the nation's motto and "under God" in the Pledge of Allegiance. He can be contacted via restorethepledge.com.
When government privileges the so-called secular aspects of Christmas over the religious aspects, or when it detaches the cultural accessories of Christmas from their religious roots, it is, in effect, taking the anti-religious side in the continuing struggle over the meaning of Christmas as a cultural resource. And it is in that sense establishing, not the neutral secularism that is built into our constitutional dispensation, but an anti-religious secularism that is foreign to that dispensation. (p.8, Dane, Perry, "Christmas" (November 2006). Available at SSRN)His argument is, in short, that using government property to display Xmas trees and Santas, absent their religious context, is deleterious to our establishment-centered Constitutional provisions; the clearest, but least popular, solution is to not use government property to celebrate or endorse any aspect of any holidays. He recognizes that accomodationist positions of embracing pluralism won't work, and would be likely to cause more legal issues than they solve. And he admits that the austerity here isn't attractive, but it is, incontrovertibly, a true legal solution, and perhaps the only workable one.
We mean a set of moral truths that would remain true no matter what any individual or social group thought or desired. The notion of objective morality is antithetical to all forms of moral subjectivism. It holds, first, that we have moral beliefs that are either true or false; that they are not mere expressions of emotion, akin to sighs of pleasure or pain. It holds, secondly, that the truth or falsity of our moral judgments is a function of whether or not the objects of moral appraisal, agents and their actions, have the moral properties that we ascribe to them; that their truth or falsity is not merely a function of the thoughts, feelings, or attitudes of individuals or the conventions of society. And it holds, thirdly, that there may well be moral truths still awaiting our discovery, through revelation (on the theist's account) or through reason and experience--together, perhaps, with our changing biology--(on my account).Something I have no doubts of is that morality must be approached objectively if one is to use reason to discuss moral truths -- ie if one assumes that moral facts exist. I have tried to explain how my own view of morality can be grounded in simple truths about human survival, socialization, and empathy. In short, if humans exist, and if there are a range of options about how they might behave towards one another, then cooperative, kind behavior is one of those options. The reason it is good, I argue, is that it leads to more pleasure, happiness, less pain, longer lifespan, health, wealth...etc. Moral behavior, derivable from a simple set of virtues, can be shown to produce these effects. If we agree that these effects are good, then you now know what is good, and if you know what is good, you ought to do good for the sake of good itself. This is certainly a consequentialist view, but such a simple precept seems quite compatible with a standalone deontological virtue theory.
God as Abuser: Similarities Between the Christian God and Abusive SpousesWow. Can anyone honestly deny how clear those parallels are? I challenge any Christian to show how these comparisons are not accurate.
From Austin ClineIt’s common for Christians to compare the relationship between humanity and God to that between husband and wife. God is the “man” of the house to whom humanity owes obedience, respect, and honor. Usually this relationship is portrayed as one of love, but in far too many ways, God is more like an abusive spouse who only knows how to love through intimidation and violence. A review of classic signs and symptoms of spousal abuse reveals how abusive the “relationship” people have with God is.
- God and Spousal Abuse:
Abusers instill fear in their spouses; believers are instructed to fear God. Abusers are unpredictable and given to dramatic mood swings; God is depicted as alternating between love and violence. Abused spouses avoid topics which set off the abuser; believers avoid thinking about certain things to avoid angering God. Abusers make one feel like there is no way to escape a relationship; believers are told that there is no way to escape God’s wrath and eventual punishment.
- Victims are Afraid of the Abuser:
Violence is a primary means by which abusers communicate, even with their spouses whom they are supposed to love. Abusers aren’t just violent towards their spouses — they also use violence against objects, pets, and other things to instill more fear and to force compliance with their wishes. God is portrayed as using violence to force people to comply with certain rules and Hell is the ultimate threat of violence. God might even punish an entire nation for the transgressions of a few members.
- Abusers Use of Threats and Intimidation to Force Compliance:
In order to exercise greater control over a victim, abusers will withhold important resources in order to make the victim more dependent. Resources used like this include money, credit cards, access to transportation, medications, or even food. God is also depicted as exercising control over people by controlling their resources — if people are insufficiently obedient, for example, God may cause crops to fail or water to turn bad. The basic necessities of living are conditioned on obeying God.
- Abusers Withholds Resources from Victims:
A further means of exercising control over a victim is instilling feelings of inadequacy in them. By getting them to feel worthless, helpless, and unable to do anything right, they will lack the self-confidence necessary to stand up to the abuser and resist the abuse. Believers are taught that they are depraved sinners, unable to do anything right and unable to have good, decent, or moral lives independent of God. Everything good that a believer achieves is due to God, not their own efforts.
- Abusers Instill Feelings of Inadequacy in Victims:
Part of the process of encouraging the victim to feel inadequate involves getting them to feel that they really do deserve the abuse they are suffering. If the abuser is justified in punishing the victim, then the victim can hardly complain, can she? God is also described as being justified in punishing humanity — all people are so sinful and depraved that they deserve an eternity in hell (created by God). Their only hope is that God will take pity on them and save them.
- Victims Feel they Deserve to be Punished by Abusers:
Another part of the process of making the victim feel inadequate is ensuring that they know how little the abuser trusts them. The victim is not trusted to make her own decisions, dress herself, buy things on her own, or anything else. She is also isolated from her family so that she can’t find help. God, too, is depicted as treating people as if they were unable to do anything right or make their own decisions (like on moral issues, for example).
- Victims are Not Trusted by Abusers:
Although abusers encourage victims to feel inadequate, it is the abuser who really has problems with self-confidence. Abusers encourage emotional dependency because they are emotionally dependent themselves — this produces extreme jealousy and controlling behavior. God, too, is depicted as dependent upon human worship and love. God is usually described as jealous and unable to handle it when people turn away. God is all-powerful, but unable to prevent the smallest problems.
- Emotional Dependency of the Abuser on the Victim:
Victims are typically made to feel responsible for all of an abuser’s actions, not just deserving of the punishments inflicted. Thus victims are told that it’s their fault when an abuser gets angry, feels suicidal, or indeed when anything at all goes wrong. Humanity is also blamed for everything that goes wrong — although God created humanity and can stop any unwanted actions, all responsibility for all evil in the world is laid entirely at the feet of human beings.
- Blaming the Victim for the Abuser’s Actions:
Why do women stay with violent, abusive spouses? Why don’t they just pack up and leave, making a new life for themselves elsewhere and with people who actually respect and honor them as equal, independent human beings? The signs of abuse described above should help in answering these questions: women are so emotionally and psychologically beaten down that they lack the mental strength to do what is necessary. They don’t have enough confidence to believe that they can make it without the man who keeps telling them that only he could possibly love such an ugly and worthless person such as they.
- Why Do Abused People Stay With Their Abusers?:
Perhaps some insight on this can be gained by rephrasing the question and asking why people don’t abandon the emotionally and psychologically abusive relationship they are expected to develop with God? The existence of God isn’t relevant here — what matters is how people are taught to perceive themselves, their world, and what will happen to them if they make the mistake of trying to leave the relationship in order to make a better life for themselves elsewhere.
Women who are abused are told that they can’t make it on their own and if they try, their spouse will come after them to punish or even kill them. Believers are told that they can’t accomplish anything of value without God, that they are so worthless that only because God is infinitely loving does he love them at all; if they turn their backs on God, they will be punished for all eternity in hell. The sort of “love” which God has for humanity is the “love” of an abuser who threatens, attacks, and commits violence in order to get his own way.
Religions like Christianity are abusive insofar as they encourage people to feel inadequate, worthless, dependent, and deserving of harsh punishment. Such religions are abusive insofar as they teach people to accept the existence of a god which, if human, would have long ago been shut away in prison for all his immoral and violent behavior.
...It is the fear of God which prevents us from dousing fellow citizens with kerosene and lighting them ablaze. It is the fear of God which prevents us from shooting a disabled man in his wheelchair and then pushing him in to the sea. It is the fear of God which commands us to choose right over wrong...Yikes! I hope to never meet this Amy Barath on the street when she's having a bad day, or wrestling with doubts about God. People like Amy apparently cannot be swayed by rational argument to be good to others out of of self-interest: reciprocity and justice cannot exist if we all do not agree to treat each other fairly and well. She's scary.
It is the responsibility of the Conservatives to protect the concept of God as the golden thread which holds our Republic together in the way it was intended as set forth by our founding fathers. Although we have become tired of the tantrums from the Left, we must muster our energy, fight this one and win. If we do not, if we allow the Left to erase the meaning of God from our memories and disallow us to teach the future generations of this country the importance of fearing God, one day we will be strolling down Main Steet whistling Dixie when a member of the Anti-Whistling Dixie Brigade stops us, throws acid in our faces and then sets as ablaze. [emphasis mine]