Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"

PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.

DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.

TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?

PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.

https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
------------------------------------------------------------

I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."

https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ

PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 3:10:44 PM UTC+10, MarkE wrote:
> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>
> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>
> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>
> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>
> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>
> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...

Correction, that should be Hitchens'

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:10:44 AM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>
> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>
> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>
> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>
> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>
> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...

I don't think Christianity is quite as bad, overall, as Peter Hitchens makes it look

On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>
> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>
> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>
> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>
> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>
> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
>

Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
religion in general.

When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
....) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
in the door for bigotry.

But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good
epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.

--
alias Ernest Major

On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>
> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>
> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>
> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>
> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>
> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
>

If you want a dangerous idea try Sola Fides, which is corrosive of morals.

--
alias Ernest Major

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:10:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>
> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>
> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>
> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>
> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> ------------------------------------------------------------
..................................................
> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."

If you want to start arguing motives, then the discussion is already doomed.. Your arguments do not allow a "divine foot in the door," at all. They just allow an undefined foot in the door. None of the positive characteristics you ascribe to the Christian God are derivable from the (hypothetical) need for a non-naturalistic explanation of OoL.

The idea that people reject your "explanatory gap" argument because they do not want to behave justly is, to put it mildly, a self-serving cop-out. People reject your argument because it is nothing but gussied up "God-of-the Gaps," which is actually more offensive to the Christian I was once than to the atheist I am now.
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>
> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 5:55:44 AM UTC-4, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> >
> > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> >
> > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> >
> > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> >
> > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> >
> > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> >
> > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> >
> If you want a dangerous idea try Sola Fides, which is corrosive of morals..

I definitely agree with you about sola fides being corrosive of morals. Even without sola fides, though, the moral hazard of Christianity and similar religions is that it makes the primary problem with sin the fact that it messes up one's relationship with God, rather than that it hurts real people. It's easy enough to convince yourself that an all-merciful God has forgiven you your trespasses, than it is to deal with the mess you have created on earth. I think that contributes to the reason sexual abuse scandals in various churches get out of hand - the hierarchy sees the problem as a priest or pastor who has damaged his relationship with God rather than as somebody who is hurting other human beings.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:55:44 AM UTC+2, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> >
> > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> >
> > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> >
> > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> >
> > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> >
> > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> >
> > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> >
> If you want a dangerous idea try Sola Fides, which is corrosive of morals..
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

Or the type of ethno-nationalism Hitchens is pushing. A Christian England bringing the
one true religion to the barbarians, the sequel. Perefectly in line with the post-Brexit
mood of our conservatives who think they can recreate the commonwealth

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> >
> > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> >
> > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> >
> > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> >
> > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> >
> > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> >
> > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> >
> > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> >
> Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
> necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
> religion in general.
>
> When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
> in the door for bigotry.

1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
2. Some humans have misused religion.
3. Therefore we can discount religion.

Hard to argue with that.

>
> But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good
> epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.
>
> --
> alias Ernest Major

On 9/22/2023 12:07 AM, MarkE wrote:
> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>
> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>
> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>
> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>
> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."

Gap denial is a dishonest and stupid way to try to get a "divine foot in
the door." When you do not want to believe in the designer that would
fill that gap there is absolutely no honest reason for continuing that
gap denial.

Science can deal with anything that you can determine in some way exists
to be studied. All you need to do in order to get your god to be part
of the scientific explanation of nature is to demonstrate that god's
existence. The Top Six should have told you that there was no reason to
try to continue to lie about what you wanted to do with any ID creation
science that could be done. It turned out that most Bibilcal
creationists did not want to believe in the god that filled the
"Science" gaps that exist. There wasn't any science that they wanted to
accomplish. You have demonstrated that you do not want to believe in
the designer that fills the current origin of life gap, but you still
lie to yourself that demonstrating that the gap exists supports your
religious beliefs.

The resistance to getting a "divine foot in the door" comes from you.
Biblical creationists are the ones that do not want their god to fill
the current origin of life gap. You could participate in the scientific
endeavor and try to figure out what your designer is responsible for in
the origin of life gap (#3 of the Top Six), but Tour and you refuse to
do that.

What could your designer have done, and what happened before and after
that event? The Big Bang occurred over 13 billion years ago (#1), and
the fine tuning of our solar system using elements that had taken over 8
billion years to be created by dying stars occurred around 4.5 billion
years ago (#2). The origin of life occurred over 3 billion years ago on
an earth that was much different than what exists today (#3). This was
long before land plants were created on the earth because they were
created after sea creatures of the Cambrian explosion (#5). In this
reality microbial life existed for billions of years and IC structures
like the bacterial flagellum (#4) evolved long before land plants were
created on the 3rd day. I've given you the reason to believe model that
they came up with that has to reinterpret the Bible or deny the gap
denial. Can you do better?

Ron Okimoto
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>
> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
>

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:25:45 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail..com wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:10:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> >
> > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> >
> > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> >
> > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> >
> > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> >
> > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > ------------------------------------------------------------
> .................................................
> > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> If you want to start arguing motives, then the discussion is already doomed. Your arguments do not allow a "divine foot in the door," at all. They just allow an undefined foot in the door. None of the positive characteristics you ascribe to the Christian God are derivable from the (hypothetical) need for a non-naturalistic explanation of OoL.
>
> The idea that people reject your "explanatory gap" argument because they do not want to behave justly is, to put it mildly, a self-serving cop-out. People reject your argument because it is nothing but gussied up "God-of-the Gaps," which is actually more offensive to the Christian I was once than to the atheist I am now.

“…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.” (Source to be revealed elsewhere)

> >
> > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> >
> > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 6:50:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> > >
> > > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> > >
> > > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> > >
> > > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> > >
> > > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> > >
> > Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
> > necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
> > religion in general.
> >
> > When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
> > ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
> > Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
> > Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
> > resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
> > in the door for bigotry.
> 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
> 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
>
> Hard to argue with that.

I don't think that that is the argument. The argument is that religious people on average behave no better (or worse) than non-religious people and that therefore, the idea that people reject religion because they want to behave badly doesn't fly.
> >
> > But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good
> > epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.
> >
> > --
> > alias Ernest Major

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:00:45 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:25:45 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:10:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> > >
> > > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> > >
> > > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> > >
> > > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > .................................................
> > > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> > If you want to start arguing motives, then the discussion is already doomed. Your arguments do not allow a "divine foot in the door," at all. They just allow an undefined foot in the door. None of the positive characteristics you ascribe to the Christian God are derivable from the (hypothetical) need for a non-naturalistic explanation of OoL.
> >
> > The idea that people reject your "explanatory gap" argument because they do not want to behave justly is, to put it mildly, a self-serving cop-out.. People reject your argument because it is nothing but gussied up "God-of-the Gaps," which is actually more offensive to the Christian I was once than to the atheist I am now.
> “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism is a hidden philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.” (Source to be revealed elsewhere)

"if the evidence really isn't there like they say" - that clause has to do an awful lot of work, and it's not very well defined.

What belief is being clung to? The belief that it's worth trying to figure out how OoL happened? The belief that it's OK to say "don't know'?

I don't particularly care who the source is. Whoever the source is, I disagree with him/her. You have said several times that ID is not in the same category as science (ie methodological naturalism), and that that is why ID does not need positive evidence in its favor, or any detailed model of how OoL or anything else happened. So an ID "explanation" is not an explanation. It does not depend on evidence and could be true regardless of any amount of evidence supporting or falsifying any particular model of OoL.

As for "face slappingly obvious" - how can there possibly be a "face slappingly obvious" ID explanation of anything at all? There are a limitless number of possible ID explanations and no way to test which one might be correct (that's what you get when you move ID into a different category from science).

God-of-the Gaps reduces God as an instrument for our use, to plug gaps in our ignorance, it is a limited, diminishing vision of God and suggests that better human understanding of how the world works diminishes God's sphere. It's lousy theology and an uninspiring vision of God.

> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> > >
> > > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 6:50:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> > >
> > > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> > >
> > > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> > >
> > > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> > >
> > > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> > >
> > Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
> > necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
> > religion in general.
> >
> > When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
> > ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
> > Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
> > Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
> > resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
> > in the door for bigotry.
..
> 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
> 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
>
> Hard to argue with that.

Was that an attempt at a syllogism? If so, it failed.
It's also easy to argue against, and doesn't match what has been said here
by any but you.

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:00:45 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 8:25:45 PM UTC+10, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 1:10:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> > >
> > > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> > >
> > > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> > >
> > > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > .................................................
> > > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> > If you want to start arguing motives, then the discussion is already doomed. Your arguments do not allow a "divine foot in the door," at all. They just allow an undefined foot in the door. None of the positive characteristics you ascribe to the Christian God are derivable from the (hypothetical) need for a non-naturalistic explanation of OoL.
> >
> > The idea that people reject your "explanatory gap" argument because they do not want to behave justly is, to put it mildly, a self-serving cop-out.. People reject your argument because it is nothing but gussied up "God-of-the Gaps," which is actually more offensive to the Christian I was once than to the atheist I am now.

> “…but if the evidence isn't really there like they say, why do such smart people
> cling to a poorly supported, scientifically dubious belief? A big reason is
> something called methodological naturalism. Methodological naturalism
> is a hidden philosophical starting point that ultimately assumes only one
> possible explanation, natural causes, no matter how remote or impossible
> the odds, and ignores all others no matter how face-slappingly obvious.”
> (Source to be revealed elsewhere)

One could play mad libs with a few words in there and have some fun.
It's often like that with conclusory accusations. Intellectually, it's thin gruel.

On 22/09/2023 11:50, MarkE wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
>> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
>>> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>>>
>>> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>>>
>>> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>>>
>>> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>>>
>>> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>>>
>>> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>
>>> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>>>
>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>>>
>>> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
>>>
>> Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
>> necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
>> religion in general.
>>
>> When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
>> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
>> in the door for bigotry.
>
> 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
> 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
>
> Hard to argue with that.

Thank you for proving my point. Such an egregious mischaracterisation of
my observations demonstrates the fallaciousness of your thesis.
>
>>
>> But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good
>> epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.
>>
>> --
>> alias Ernest Major
>

--
alias Ernest Major

On 22/09/2023 12:06, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 6:50:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
>>> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
>>>> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>>>>
>>>> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>>>>
>>>> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>>>>
>>>> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>>>>
>>>> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>>>>
>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>>>>
>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>>>>
>>>> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
>>>>
>>> Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
>>> necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
>>> religion in general.
>>>
>>> When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
>>> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
>>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
>>> in the door for bigotry.
>> 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
>> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
>> 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
>>
>> Hard to argue with that.
>
> I don't think that that is the argument. The argument is that religious people on average behave no better (or worse) than non-religious people and that therefore, the idea that people reject religion because they want to behave badly doesn't fly.

The half truth in his strawman is that some people leave religion not
because they DON'T want to act justly, but because they DO want to act
justly. (But it should have been clear that I was making the observation
to debunk the attribution of nefarious intent to non-belivers; not to
make an argument for the falsity of religion.)

In religious terms (Matthew 7: 15-20) you could justify that, except for
the paradoxical of using the paradigm of the religion to reject the
religion, but I don't consider it an epistemologically valid argument
against religion, though I understand how hypocrisy and immorality could
be corrosive of belief. From that I've read from people who went through
that process, it's not a matter of following that syllogism, but coming
to a realisation that their faith was built on sand.
>>>
>>> But you don't have to look for such motives. There are perfectly good
>>> epistemological objections to a God of the Gaps position.
>>>
>>> --
>>> alias Ernest Major
>

--
alias Ernest Major

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
> > On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> > >
> > > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> > >
> > > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> > >
> > > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> > >
> > > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > >
> > > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> > >
> > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> > >
> > > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> > >
> > Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
> > necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
> > religion in general.
> >
> > When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
> > ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
> > Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
> > Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
> > resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
> > in the door for bigotry.
> 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
> 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
>
> Hard to argue with that.
> >

Well, your author argued that
1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
2. Some humans have used religion for good
3. therefore religion is true

In the context of this facile argument (especially as he really does not make the case
for 2 the way he reasoned) that seems fair enough - not to discount religion but the specific
argument in favour of religion that your source made

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
> > > On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > > > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> > > >
> > > > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> > > >
> > > > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> > > >
> > > > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> > > >
> > > > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> > > >
> > > > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > >
> > > > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> > > >
> > > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> > > >
> > > > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> > > >
> > > Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
> > > necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
> > > religion in general.
> > >
> > > When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
> > > ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
> > > Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
> > > Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
> > > resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
> > > in the door for bigotry.
> > 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
> > 2. Some humans have misused religion.
> > 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
> >
> > Hard to argue with that.
> > >
> Well, your author argued that
> 1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
> 2. Some humans have used religion for good
> 3. therefore religion is true

Nope.

Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose..

Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

>
> In the context of this facile argument (especially as he really does not make the case
> for 2 the way he reasoned) that seems fair enough - not to discount religion but the specific
> argument in favour of religion that your source made

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
> > > > On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > > > > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> > > > >
> > > > > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> > > > >
> > > > > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> > > > >
> > > > > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> > > > >
> > > > > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> > > > >
> > > > > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> > > > >
> > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> > > > >
> > > > > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> > > > >
> > > > Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
> > > > necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
> > > > religion in general.
> > > >
> > > > When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
> > > > ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
> > > > Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
> > > > Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
> > > > resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
> > > > in the door for bigotry.
> > > 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
> > > 2. Some humans have misused religion.
> > > 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
> > >
> > > Hard to argue with that.
> > > >
> > Well, your author argued that
> > 1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
> > 2. Some humans have used religion for good
> > 3. therefore religion is true
> Nope.
>
> Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.

Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.
>
> Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”

Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.

Many Christians imagine that if they lost their faith (1) they would go on a vice driven rampage and (2) life would cease to have any meaning. I can tell you, having myself been a Christian who lost faith, that neither of those things happened to me. Nor has it happened to many de-converts that I have known.
> >
> > In the context of this facile argument (especially as he really does not make the case
> > for 2 the way he reasoned) that seems fair enough - not to discount religion but the specific
> > argument in favour of religion that your source made

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail..com wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
> > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> > > > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
> > > > > On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
> > > > > > Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> > > > > > ------------------------------------------------------------
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
> > > > > >
> > > > > > https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
> > > > > >
> > > > > > PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
> > > > > >
> > > > > Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
> > > > > necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
> > > > > religion in general.
> > > > >
> > > > > When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
> > > > > ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
> > > > > Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
> > > > > Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
> > > > > resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
> > > > > in the door for bigotry.
> > > > 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
> > > > 2. Some humans have misused religion.
> > > > 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
> > > >
> > > > Hard to argue with that.
> > > > >
> > > Well, your author argued that
> > > 1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
> > > 2. Some humans have used religion for good
> > > 3. therefore religion is true
> > Nope.
> >
> > Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
> Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.
> >
> > Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
> Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.

Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)

* * * * *

“All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need....
fantasies to make life bearable."
..
REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
..
"Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
..
YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
THE LITTLE LIES.
..
"So we can believe the big ones?"
..
YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
..
"They're not the same at all!"
..
YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
MAY BE JUDGED.
..
"Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
..
MY POINT EXACTLY.”
..
* * * *
--Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.

That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.

On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
>>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
>>>>>> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:
>>>>>>> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Belief in the resurrection and divinity of Rebbe Yeshua is neither
>>>>>> necessary nor sufficient for the pursuit of justice. The same holds for
>>>>>> religion in general.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
>>>>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
>>>>>> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
>>>>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
>>>>>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
>>>>>> in the door for bigotry.
>>>>> 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
>>>>> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
>>>>> 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hard to argue with that.
>>>>>>
>>>> Well, your author argued that
>>>> 1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
>>>> 2. Some humans have used religion for good
>>>> 3. therefore religion is true
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
>> Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.
>>>
>>> Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
>> Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.
>
> Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
> passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
>
> * * * * *
>
> “All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
> fantasies to make life bearable."
> .
> REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
> NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
> FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
> .
> "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
> .
> YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
> THE LITTLE LIES.
> .
> "So we can believe the big ones?"
> .
> YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
> .
> "They're not the same at all!"
> .
> YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
> TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
> AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
> OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
> AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
> IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
> MAY BE JUDGED.
> .
> "Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
> .
> MY POINT EXACTLY.”
> .
> * * * *
> --Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
>
> That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
> A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
>
Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our
species as social animals. So there.

On 9/22/2023 2:02 AM, Burkhard wrote:
> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:10:44 AM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
>> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>>
>> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>>
>> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>>
>> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>>
>> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>>
>> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
>> ------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>>
>> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>>
>> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
>
> I don't think Christianity is quite as bad, overall, as Peter Hitchens makes it look
>

The first response to being in danger is an attempt to minimize the danger.

On 9/21/2023 10:07 PM, MarkE wrote:
> Following is Peter Hitchens (brother of the late Christopher Hitchens) responding to a television panel discussion question, "Which so-called dangerous idea do you each think would have the greatest potential to change the world for the better if where implemented?"
>
> PETER HITCHENS: The most dangerous idea in human history and philosophy remains the belief that Jesus Christ was the son of God and rose from the dead and that is the most dangerous idea you will ever encounter.
>
> DAN SAVAGE: I'd have to agree with that.
>
> TONY JONES: Just quickly, because I think you can't really leave it there, why dangerous?
>
> PETER HITCHENS: I can't really leave it there? Because it alters the whole of human behaviour and all our responsibilities. It turns the universe from a meaningless chaos into a designed place in which there is justice and there is hope and, therefore, we all have a duty to discover the nature of that justice and work towards that hope. It alters us all. If we reject It, it alters us all was well. It is incredibly dangerous. It's why so many people turn against it.
>
> https://www.abc.net.au/qanda/from-the-festival-of-dangerous-ideas/10657962
> ------------------------------------------------------------
>
> I mention this in view of recent discussion of naturalistic explanations proving inadequate over time, hypothetically at least for the sake of discussion. Peter Hitchen's assessment I think explains some of the disproportionate resistance here to allowing a "divine foot in the door."
>
> https://groups.google.com/g/talk.origins/c/YotrYRRVG3I/m/qm3PS1L-BwAJ
>
> PS I'm trying to imagine brotherly debate at the Hitchen's family dinner table...
>

It's dangerous if it's only a "belief". But it's not only a "belief".
It's a fact.

On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 11:25:45 AM UTC-4, John Harshman wrote:
> On 9/22/23 7:40 AM, Lawyer Daggett wrote:
> > On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:15:45 AM UTC-4, broger...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 9:55:44 AM UTC-4, MarkE wrote:
> >>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 10:45:44 PM UTC+10, Burkhard wrote:
> >>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 12:50:44 PM UTC+2, MarkE wrote:
> >>>>> On Friday, September 22, 2023 at 7:50:44 PM UTC+10, Ernest Major wrote:
> >>>>>> On 22/09/2023 06:07, MarkE wrote:

> >>>>>> When one looks at contemporary Christianity (Trump, DeSantis, Putin,
> >>>>>> ...) it looks like a net negative to the pursuit of justice. Furthermore
> >>>>>> Creationism and Intelligent Design are tied to the worse elements of
> >>>>>> Christianity. If you're looking for a cause for "disproportionate
> >>>>>> resistance" you should be looking at "the God hypothesis" being a foot
> >>>>>> in the door for bigotry.
> >>>>> 1. At different times, humans have misused and abused many things.
> >>>>> 2. Some humans have misused religion.
> >>>>> 3. Therefore we can discount religion.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Hard to argue with that.
> >>>>>>
> >>>> Well, your author argued that
> >>>> 1. at different times, humans have used many things for good
> >>>> 2. Some humans have used religion for good
> >>>> 3. therefore religion is true
> >>> Nope.
> >>>
> >>> Peter Hitchens argued that moral accountability to a personal God is a "dangerous idea" in that if true, it is more consequential than death itself. Moreover, Christianity replaces "meaningless chaos" with meaning and purpose.
> >> Peter Hitchens is wrong. Morality does not depend on a personal God, or any sort of God. And even if it did, people who believe in God often have pretty widely differing views of morality, anyway.
> >>>
> >>> Meaningless chaos? Yes, and humanist attempts like existentialism can't rescue you. Dawkins is intellectually honest in summing up materialism: "In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won't find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice. The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.”
> >> Dawkins is talking about the universe. The universe is unjust, or better, amoral (not chaotic though, you wouldn't get "chaotic" from Dawkins or from anyone who studies physics). That does not mean that humans cannot value justice or that human life is meaningless for humans. I agree with Dawkins about the universe, but I find life very meaningful, and I suspect that I behave towards others at least as well as the average Christian.
> >
> > Although no explicit invitation was made, I will presume one to repost a favorite
> > passage from a lovely book. The CAPS are the words of DEATH (grim reaper guy)
> >
> > * * * * *
> >
> > “All right," said Susan. "I'm not stupid. You're saying humans need...
> > fantasies to make life bearable."
> > .
> > REALLY? AS IF IT WAS SOME KIND OF PINK PILL? NO. HUMANS
> > NEED FANTASY TO BE HUMAN. TO BE THE PLACE WHERE THE
> > FALLING ANGEL MEETS THE RISING APE.
> > .
> > "Tooth fairies? Hogfathers? Little—"
> > .
> > YES. AS PRACTICE. YOU HAVE TO START OUT LEARNING TO BELIEVE
> > THE LITTLE LIES.
> > .
> > "So we can believe the big ones?"
> > .
> > YES. JUSTICE. MERCY. DUTY. THAT SORT OF THING.
> > .
> > "They're not the same at all!"
> > .
> > YOU THINK SO? THEN TAKE THE UNIVERSE AND GRIND IT DOWN
> > TO THE FINEST POWDER AND SIEVE IT THROUGH THE FINEST SIEVE
> > AND THEN SHOW ME ONE ATOM OF JUSTICE, ONE MOLECULE
> > OF MERCY. AND YET—Death waved a hand. AND YET YOU ACT
> > AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE
> > IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT
> > MAY BE JUDGED.
> > .
> > "Yes, but people have got to believe that, or what's the point—"
> > .
> > MY POINT EXACTLY.”
> > .
> > * * * *
> > --Terry Pratchett, The Hogfather.
> >
> > That ought not be taken as a reason to adopt some religion.
> > A belief in justice, mercy, duty is not dependent upon any theology.
> >
> Is it too late to bring up the Euthyphro dilemma? God can't be the
> foundation for morality, justice, etc. He either reflects a standard
> separate from himself or he presents an arbitrary standard. Morality and
> justice are human constructs reliant on the evolutionary history of our
> species as social animals. So there.
..
I'm a bit unclear on your phrasing. I get the "standard separate ..." part,
but respective to the arbitrary standard, that would then be the foundation..
It is counter to my conception of morality, justice, etc., but my conception
be damned. I accept the rest of your statement.

One the broader questions around Euthypro's Dilemma, it always confuses me.
I was weaned on a concept of a conscious, as a catholic concept, that I had
within me an innate knowledge of right and wrong. Without delving too deeply
into any truth to that, it led me to develop such as an integral part of my being.
The religious trappings don't seem important in the end, but the part about
developing a personal sense of adjudication does. That presumes some variant
of a Platonic ideal, I think. The alternative, again harking back to early childhood
development, is the "because I said so" rule of law of a domineering parent..
Happily, I didn't experience that.

So when the dilemma is invoked, I have trouble processing it. The notion of "good
and evil" being whatever some god happens to feel, perhaps capriciously, dependent
upon mood or digestive issues, is just summarily rejected as ludicrous. Yet at
some intellectual level I recognize that it is part of many people's worldview. Still,
I recoil in horror and can't go there to think about it.

Then again, crushing your enemies, seeing them driven before you, and hearing the
lamentations of their women, occasionally seems appealing.