Self-awareness is a virtue. :)

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,
How persistent are your evasiveness and obtuseness?
Why did you compare my argument to the ontological one?
Do you retract that?
If you don't understand my argument, why state that it is a misuse of Godel? Please retract or be very specific.
I think it's clear that you are still confused.

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

David,
might help you to understand if you respond more to the points made and spend less effort on attempts and snide remarks. e.g. Telling me that you think Greg is delusional and ignoring my specific argument whilst falsely accusing me of the playing the ontoligical argument is simply obtuse.

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

The fact is I haven't misused Godel in any way whatsoever. David can't be specific because he doesn't appear to understand either my argument or the ones he's confusing it with. David and Alan obscure and smear to avoid accepting that any unprovable knowledge may be required to progress.Narrow+wrong

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

Oh, and John, you're probably right in one sense about my not understanding the basis of faith. I've had a pretty good go though on the comments section of the Times Online 'Leszek Borysiewicz' story. I think I demonstrated there that it (Greg's anyway) appears very delusional in our public reality.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David, there's nothing ironic about it.
You need to state exactly how you think I'm misusing the incompleteness theorems. I never used the ontological argument. You have once or twice suggested that complexity and subtlety rendered moral frameworks are non-formalisable and I showed otherwise. So..?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David, there's nothing ironic about it.
You need to state exactly how you think I'm misusing the incompleteness theorems. I never used the ontological argument. You have once or twice suggested that complexity and subtlety rendered moral frameworks are non-formalisable and I showed otherwise. So..?

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

Alan, I suppose my faith is based on knowledge of my own existence combined with the luminosity of Jesus' message.But until you follow the earlier posts to understand what rationality, logic and their relationship really mean, your line of questioning is pointless.You don't get logic. You just don't

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Ironically, there are even websites dedicated to the misuse of Godel's theorems.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John - how about answering a straight question - just for once. Why, why do your believe in such irrationalities? Were you told these tales as a child and have never grown out of them? Afraid to lose face perhaps? What reason (!) do you have for still believing in them - as a grown-up, I mean?

alan, gemany,

Ironically, there are even websites dedicated to the misuse of Godel's theorems.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Alan,
I'm not trying to convert you, I'm merely showing why my faith is not irrational and that your atheism is irrational.
But I can't explain anything to someone with such a corrupt vision of faith,science and logic. The failings you had/have in logic were pointed out...do you understand them no.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Alan,
If you want photographic proof of your cartoon version of God, then you are correct in thinking that I cannot give you that. Well done, give yourself a gold star.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John, for goodness sake stop accusing others and explain - just for once - why you believe in a supernatural being, living in a "heaven", that created itself out of nothing. And why you worship it. And why rational-thinking people should be expected to believe such absurdities.

alan, gemany,

Like most new-atheist, David, you misunderstand the basis of faith, and therefore you set out an incorrect problem space. Arrogance and cynicism are no substitute for intellectual honesty and curiosity. We've been discussing this for almost a year and you still haven't engaged my argument.

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

Can you explain why you think I am putting forward an ontological argument for God? I'm doing no such thing. All I've ever done is invoke Godel to show the usual limitations of the secular approach to morality. Unprovable rules are required..which raises questions about knowledge and authority.

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

David,
You assert that I have misunderstood principles, but you don't substantiate this and you don't engage, here or on the alternative forums I've suggested. Same story, different thread. Unlike you, I pointed out the real 'weaknesses' of the argument and they pose their own big Qs for atheism.

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

David,
The ontological argument is not one I was submitting (I only knew of St Anslem's). To suggest that I was means you misappreciate one or the other or both.
The basis of morality or ethics is what we are discussing. You seem to imply that these are non-formalisable - that's one big mistake.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Like most religious people, John, you misunderstand the basis of morality and ethics, and therefore you set out an incorrect problem space. Much of this was covered in the Times Online comments for the "Dolan Cummings" and "26 Pilgrims" stories together with some outstanding questions.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John, I recognise Godel's ontological argument and I know its possible weaknesses. Yes, it's interesting. I understand his two famous theorems and their reach too. However, you're making a category error applying the argument to morality and the theorems are not relevant to our moral reality.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

The strange thing is, John, I've not been commenting on the Times Online for 'years' let alone failing to explain myself for that time. You misrepresent my arguments and attribute positions to me that I clearly don't hold. You even have trouble getting your own name right on these comments pages.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

It's comforting to know that we don't HAVE to believe in god, that product of human imagination. We don't HAVE to believe in a tri-partite something that created itself out of nothing, that gave us free will, only to punish us with hell if we don't worship it.
I'm so relieved, John.

alan, germany,

Referencing 'value pluralism'(after years of me asking you to explain yourself), a questionable philosophy from many perspectives, merely shows that you never really understood my argument. Complexity and uncertainty do not give the power to break the laws of the universe. It's another red herring.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

I am aware of those Berlin and Rawls and I don't think they are very pertinent to what I've said. Why don't you ever explain why you think otherwise and perhaps answer my questions? Can you point out how VP escapes the problem of incompleteness?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David,
I never said you HAD to believe in God. In every thread I've pointed out the same gap in your world view and you have consistently failed to engage that. I've offered to switch to emails with you; you declined. If you're going to take quotes from me 'dig deeper'), try using em meaningfully.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John, you could try looking into 'value plurarlism' and the works of Isaiah Berlin together with John Rawls for rational theories of justice and game theory once a society has been established.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,
You "in philosophy" are not engaging my points. You argue that atheists can be good by being extra-rational, but you don't tell me what those irrational motivations are. Biological imperatives are demonstrably too weak. Game theory IS reductionist, because atheism refutes the external axiom.

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

John, you start with your god 'solution' and you then construct 'problems' to match. I don't have those problems. 300 chars is not enough to educate you and you haven't listened in the past using 1000s of them. Your 'problems' are solved in philosophy already without your 'solution'. Dig deeper.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,
You "in philosophy" are not engaging my points. You argue that atheists can be good by being extra-rational, but you don't tell me what those irrational motivations are. Biological imperatives are demonstrably too weak. Game theory IS reductionist, because atheism refutes the external axiom.

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

And David,
Are you telling me that you do not believe that science is self-encapsulated and conceptually complete as some of your historic posts have implied?
Your one line post doesn't make that clear.
You seem to want it both ways;you want recourse to some mystical ingredient that but that is --?

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

Scientism? Hardly. That's what we in philosophy call a 'straw man'.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,
the Catholic church were not complaining about being left out. They were saying they need to deal with all other religions-not just Islam.
The church does argue on merit. Ratzinger wrote doctrine that prohibits Catholic politicians from doing otherwise. You argue from scientism -far worse.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

I see the Catholic Church is whinging now about being left out. Why can't these people just accept they're a special interest or pressure group like any other? We all have ideas about values, morals, and ethics and we have an interest in how others behave. Let them argue on merit not superstition.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David, Here and in other threads I explicitly accepted irrational motives for altruism (eg biological imperatives). But man's reason is more compelling. Man can be far kinder/cruel than any other animal. Are there other irrational motives? You can't explain your goodness this way. It takes more.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

And David your mistake is to think that somehow very complex behaviour does not have to abide by the laws of the universe. A complex system is still a system. Also, rational thought is more than mere logic, as I mentioned many times. Consciousness is very special..scientism gets trapped here as well

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Well, you old boys only have yourselves to blame for the mess your in.

Phil, Washington, DC,

John, you're being reductionist by invoking game theory at the level of society and your ideas about morality assume it must be entirely rational which is an elementary mistake. Dig deeper.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

Alan, Yes I get you. When you talk about logic you mean boolean logic, AKA discrete maths. It is a formal system and as such is subject to Godel's incompleteness theorems. I've explained this and given you references. Also analog and uncomputable thought is extra-logical. You don't get that.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John - perhaps we're talking at cross purposes. You appear to be preoccupied with mathematics, nuclear physics and computers.
I'm simply talking about thinking processes. Straight thinking must be logical. Science requires logical thought. (But it may discover illogicalities.)
Perhaps you agree.

alan, germany,

David, No, it's the POTENTIAL for completess. We might not be able to completely calculate the paths of breaking snooker balls, but we do know Newtonian mechanics is applicable. Complex motives do not negate rationality. You seem to have faith in mankind without reason. I understand my faith.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Furthermore, basing a moral framework only on biological imperatives and earthly material reward....ignoring an external unprovable ideal such as God is Love....such a self encapsulated system will only lead to game theory type society. Despite your claims, I do not believe you live this way.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Alan,

My value system is based on "Deus caritas est", God is love.
I find it sad that you think this axiom absurd. Perhaps you can explain your alternative moral framework. I might have some questions about it.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

David, you are obfuscating the concept. You know I accept irrational, biological motives for altruism - but man is clearly able to overcome these with reason. You justify your position by saying we have competing, complex motives that are impossible to rationalise completely. I don't buy that.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Alan, as we already pointed out, everything is based on some unprovable rules. It has to be in order to be effective. Your inability to engage this concept after so long renders your opinion pretty much invalid.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John, your "value system" is based on orders from an imagined, supernatural deity - for atheists an absurd concept.
Mine is based on conscience, backed by observation, experience and reason. Not fear of hellfire.
Your system hasn't prevented people from acting immorally. No more than mine can.

alan, germany,

John, you're making that assumption yet again that morals must be part of a single, coherent, logical system. They're based on values, some competing, which are almost certainly biological and social in origin. No god or gods are needed or wanted in my moral code or related ethics.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

John, you're making that assumption yet again that morals must be part of a single, coherent, logical system. They're based on values, some competing, which are almost certainly biological and social in origin. No god or gods are needed or wanted in my moral code or related ethics.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

David,
You might be a good person, but I don't think you can rationally reconcile that with atheism.If you are good I believe you are acting on faith based rules. New atheists never really explain their value system. A sound moral framework requires an external rule or two. Utilitariansm is lacking

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Bishop: "It is a situation which has created the moral and spiritual vacuum in which we find ourselves." There's no moral vacuum in my atheistic household and there's plenty of consensus in society about our values and the ethics we build on top. Is this guy for real?

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

jwd, Perth:"It is error to believe that religions endorse morality. " ...stuff about interpretation.

Some people are crazy enough to interpret "Turn the other cheek", "love and pray for your enemies" to bomb them, but that is just people being unreasonable, and doesn't support your assertion.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

JWD,
What utter tosh. Misinterpreting a message doesn't change the value of the message. Medical malpractice does not make medical science useless.
Alan, you won't grow if you don't engage challenge.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Is there a Moslem nation in the world that anyone would want to live in as an alternative to this country? If so, why do we have millions of happy Moslems living here?

Kevin Straw, Leicester,

It is error to believe that religions endorse morality. A savage disposition will savagely interpret the most benign religion eg
The teaching of Jesus and the Spanish Inquisition. The Fanatical Koran and the elegant Islamic scholars of the distant past eg Omar Khayam of Rubiyat fame. etc

jwd, Perth, Australia

Alan: Logic must start from somewhere: does that make things clearer? Even "This statement is false" makes assumptions in order to mean anything. These 'facts' do not come from logic itself, else a circular argument leading to meaninglessness. God=existence, so "God does not exist" is illogical.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

David,
Power?...new atheist polarization. The bishop's talking about value systems and has as much right to do so as anyone. Hitchens' and Dawkins' have more in common with Islamic fundies than the CofE. I'd like to reduce their 'power' through civilised discourse. More thought/less hyperbole.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Whether the Bishop of Rochester is right or wrong, the last thing we need to do is increase the power of Christians in the UK to redress the balance. If anything it needs to be reduced further so that we can put Islam, radical or otherwise, into the private sphere as well.

David Jones, Loughborough, UK

BTW another way that apparent paradoxes are broken down are from poorly defined initial predicates. Then there are overlapping domains: Infinite power might be limited by infinite justice.
It's clear that human the perspective of determinism/non-determinism is fatally limited. Open your eyes, Alan

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Many apparent paradoxes can also be broken down according to their initial predicates. Often they are poorly defined. I'm sure you have thought about that, though.

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

Alan,
Yes logic can be used to identify its own flaws.
If the statement is true then it makes no sense. If it's false then it becomes true. Did you look up Godel? Uncomputability? Are we over-stretching you? You never explained how we get morals from science. Your crass mockery is becoming comical

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Alan,
Yes the question of God's omnipotence is a paradox that arises out of the limitations of boolean logic. Since we can prove that we are not completely bound by boolean logic it is not much of a stretch to think that God wouldn't be. According to you Heisenberg's theories must be 'fairytales'

John McD, San Francisco , ca, USA

John, Greg, Sam - I've obviously caught you all on the wrong foot. What verbage. You're all using logic to try and prove how flawed logic is. That's illogical ...!!!

"This statement is false." - This is merely a statement describing a false statement . That's all. Very logical.

alan, germany,

John, Greg, Sam - If you'd really like something illogical, take the concept of "god's omnipotence".
"Can god create a bird that flies so fast he can't catch it?" Yes? Or no? There is no logical answer because the concept of omnipotence is absurd.
One reason why the faithful hate logic ...

alan, germany,

The green eyed monster or the Bishop of hate?

Mick, Nottingham, Notts

"Radical Islam taking advantage of Christianity.."

I think it is the Bishop of Rochester who is taking advantage of Christianity to bash Islam.

jayil, london, uk

Alan,

You claim logic as your master, but do you realise that the human mind is provably capable of understanding beyond logic? e.g. analogue thought, uncomputable thought? Do you realise that the boolean logic you use everyday is flawed? Is "This statement is false" true or false? Dig deeper.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Alan,

You are still confused. 'Faith' to me means believing in something unproved. Logic requires this. Read up on Kurt Godel's incompletness theorems. I've explained them to you before. You've had years to digest Dawkins; time to think a bit deeper, perhaps? Expand your horizon a little?

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Alan,
You call the supernatural fairy-tale's and then go on to say 'science seeks knowledge.' You are assuming the consequence. That is, you assume, without giving proof, that naturalism is true. It is your epistemology, which you by faith assume in order to begin to argue.

sam, Norwood , United States of America

alan: faith is not belief in God. That is a prerequisite.

Logic must rest on initial asusmptions: and none of yours are proven so all of your logic is just vague opinion.

The only true proof, in the face of hullucination and madness, is God proving his own existence: reason rests with us.

Greg Lorriman, Leatherhead, UK

John - you really must decide what you mean by "faith".
Like most people, I understand by "faith" the belief in the supernatural: God.
Logic is the the only way to think rationally. This is my considered opinion - not my faith. You can change my opinion, but you'll have to use logic to do so!!

alan, germany,

Alan,

Your post is confused. Does science give us morals or help us enact them? If the latter, then what is your morality based on?
A computer is not moral or immoral, neither is a gun or the orbit of the planets.
Also, as I've explained to you before, science is based on some faith, as is logic.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

John McD - what meaning/morals does science teach us? A lot!
You base your morals on what you claim a fairy-tale deity has ordered from above. What irrational arrogance!
Science seeks knowledge. It helps us place our morals on an intelligent basis according to our enlightened consciences.

alan, germany,

Andrew,

Do you want to discredit the ideal of Love?
Deus caritas est?

What would you replace it with? You don't understand the limitations of science and logic (and in anycase the notion of God is not provably false and certainly not 'illogical').
Don't waste your days in dark cynicism/nihilsm.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

Two ways to discredit Christianity
- Reduce JC to a Buddha, Gandhi figure by showing the miracle birth, overcoming death and ascension were fabrication
- Show the entire notion of God is illogical, asking, "Where's your proof?"
Coupled with examples of pernicious influence ...chr lmt

Andrew Milner, Yokohama, Japan

I suggest that it is not Christianity which is in decline. I suggest rather that quasichristian service to purposes of this world, is in decline.

Jonathan E. Brickman, Topeka, USA

Rubbish; Its more like the COE desperately trying to capitalise on increasing Islamophobia post 9/11. Marxism has as of yet only been shown to be susceptible to machinations of capitalists & criminals including the COE. Muslims,Christians etc are all in the wrong & remain an affliction upon humanity

Haseeb, London, UK

To think that moderate Muslims do not know the Qur'an and when they study it they become radical, However, unlike most religions, within Islam there are certain provisions under which lying is not simply tolerated, but actually encouraged. Please refer to Tabbarah page 247 this used to further Islam

Miguel , Manchester,

Religion has nothing to do with morality. Individuals who do not subscribe to religious doctrines are perfectly capable of forming their own convictions based upon their own experiences. His Grace maybe upset people have the audacity to reach conclusions other than those of his 'revealed' Religion

Aaron, Newcastle, UK

Liz,

How on earth does science fill the void of religion? What morals/meaning does science teach us?

Science is merely a branch of rational thought....all you Dawkins followers have bought into the religion of science based upon a limited or incorrect understanding of the philosophy of science.

John McD, San Francisco, ca, USA

I don't think their taking advantage of Christianity's decline but they are taking advantage of the wests laxed attitude and we've all seen the repercussions around the world of that

John, Salford, England

This is dangerous scaremongering by the bishop. A strong secularist tradition has always existed in our country; it is just that now more people see religious belief for the nonsense that it is. Why should taxpayers have to fork out vast sums of money to maintain a divisive system of education?

Des, Edinburgh,

I do hope this spurs Christians and Muslims into action as it would be great if they spent all their effort trying to cancel out each others mythological nonsense leaving the rest of us to live our lives in peace.

Grae, Wellington, N.Z

There is far more morality in good honest atheism than in any religious cant. There is no vacuum left by Christianity and Islam won't fill it because Science already has. A tiny minority of people are religious believers yet they get an unreasonable amount of press.

Liz, Bristol,

I think the bishop is spot on. Our culture is being buried by the left and PC. Keep up the pressure.

Ike, Ilford,

"the human race loses its belief in gods as it matures and takes more responsibility for its actions"

Ah the 'progress' cult, the prevailing superstition of the twentieth century!

daniel heslop, Bournemouth, UK

O nly religious leaders drone on about "loss of Christian values". Most people are able to lead decent lives and make moral decisions without supernatural mumbo jumbo.

iain rae, Tunbridge Wells, U.K.

My neighbour goes to an evangelical church and does a few do-gooder things. Despite this she is a venemous liar and a manipulative and generally untrustworthy person simmering in a stew of bile and resentment. Christian values eh? I have more morals than her and haven't been to church in years.

Colin, Stirling, UK

You reap what you sow. Britain has sowed secularism, atheism, false Eastern gods, appeasement, 'accommodation' and pseudo tolerance plus Political Correctness.

Reap the whirl-wind and pay the price. History shows what happens to disobedient nations and we will/are paying - worse to come I'm afraid

Chris Williams, Bridgend, UK

http://www.standpointmag.co.uk/print/85

Try reading this.. maybe you'll learn something. Instead of trying to perceive why not learn for a change. Does Christian britain have enough left to survive another ideological attack after the 1960's? Only time will tell. God bless!

Mark, Edinburgh, UK

Yes there are some lovely morals in Christianity and a nice example in Jesus, but Christianity also teaches some pretty nasty things we can do without.

For example it seems to matter more that you're a Christian than that you act as a good person and good outside Christianity seems not recognised.

Richard, Leeds, UK

"Radical Islam taking advantage of Christianity's decline, says bishop"

This just basically means that Dr Michael Nazir-Ali is not doing his job properly.

jayil, london, uk

GEORGE BERNARD SHAW
"If any religion had the chance of ruling over England, nay Europe within the next hundred years, it could be Islam."

ALAMINUK, LONDON, UK

It's true that Islam is growing whilst Christianity withers away. But a quick scan of this article and you can see why.

The CofE wants to talk about how horrid everything is.

The Muslim wants to talk about the righteousness of his faith.

Easy to see which religion has the most appeal.

bob, Liverpool, uk

If the BNP are looking for a recruiting sergeant, then they've found one in the Bishop. Is he moonlighting?

So much too for inter-faith dialogue. The sooner religion keeps its bizarre beliefs inside the home or place of worship, the better it will be for all of us.

Dave, Dundee, UK

Typical - because we all know moral authority extends only from the Church of England... what incredible arrogance this man has to shove this garbage down our throats.

Morality is a shared set of social values, and I don't need his god waved in my face to recognise right and wrong.

Andy, Glasgow, Scotland

Look at almost any Islamic society in the world and you will see how Christians and other minorities are treated (or should I say mistreated). Should Islam ever become a dominant force here, don't expect the freedom to be having these conversations! The Bishop is right.

Andrew Brown, derby, UK

Meme of Blackpool.

Your 'descendants' would turn in their grves?

EO

Eleen O'Conor, Cordoba, Spain

As a child loses its belief in Father Christmas as it matures and learns, so the human race loses its belief in gods as it matures and takes more responsibility for its actions rather than putting them on imaginary figures.

Charlie, Munich,

Why is the question not 'should religion have a role in public life?' If Nazir-Ali were to ask the question I'm sure he'd get several resounding 'no's from those of us sick of being bullied by somebody elses beliefs. Fear of Islam is not going to create Christian believers and it is cynical to try

Sophie, Liverpool,

Weak leaders with weak values. If people need religion they need leadership and the current crop of so called leaders are laughable.

Roger, Surrey.,

The bishop could have said much the same about the R C Church. That Church, so strong elsewhere, e.g. the USA, is declining in England because of weak bishops, more socialist than Christians. Those bishops recently invited Tony Blair to give a high-profile lecture in Westminster Cathedral.

George, Bolton, England

"......the 1960s cultural revolution for bringing Christianity’s role in society to an abrupt end"

I realised that in the 1950s when I became old enough for independent thought.

There are no gods - christianity and islam are equally stupid, misleading and a means to power over ordinary people.

Ian, Solihull, UK

The Bishop is mistaken on 1960s. The 1960s defeated the remnants of Victorian hypocritical morality and created freedom of the individual.

He needs to situate a valid criticism of Islamic radicalism on facts: of which there are many.

Modern morals need to be post-1960s and not anti-science.

Mahatma, London,

Great Britain is a Christian Country and it should remain like that. My decendants would turn in their graves if they knew what was happening to this country.

Meme, Blackpool, England

History is littered with evidence that diverse religions and cultures can never assimilate. It doesn’t matter how many times you put a chicken and a fox in a sack together the fox will always come out smiling. Isn't it funny how we Christians never need religion until were drawing our last breath.

Cromwell, Leeds, England