This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← It's like he was reading my mind

Moosebite's Avatar Jump to comment 274 by Moosebite

There is not such a thing as "current" reality. Reality is reality, irrespective of how much of it we have currently discovered.

That was indeed a bad choice of words. I just meant if it is consistent with our up-to-date knowledge.

So to me, Jesus, as he was portrayed in the bible, would not live up to the standards of the moral zeitgeist in today's world. There are more relevant role models to look up to today.
Such as?

Well that is a question with a more personal answer, because for me I look up to role models around me in my life. I guess that everybody has all sorts of different role models that they look up to. In terms of global role models, I don't really find too many people inspiring that I haven't actually met, but I think Stephen Fry would probably be at the top of the list. But I guess figures like Mary MacKillop and Ghandi could inspire people on a global scale. But people I know and interact with are much more relevant exemplars of moral behaviour than someone who may or may not have lived 200 years ago, may or may not have done the things he is purported to have done, and may or may not be the son of god/god himself. And it's not just the good people too. Some of the most important lessons can be learned from the more despicable people, global and local, historic or current.

For Catholics the Bible is not the source of moral authority. The Church is. The teaching of the Church is derived both through its interpretation of scripture and through tradition handed down across the centuries by apostolic succession.

Indeed, as is outlined in the catechism. And as is also subject to change at the will of the church, which makes changes according to pressure from the zeitgeist. Which indicates that moral guidance comes (in this day and age) more from secular progression than Catholic introspection.

That's why I have freedom of choice.

Although, earlier in the discussion you did say:

We believe that the Creator exists outside of space and time, and that all points in the time of the universe are the same to him. The act of creation itself, therefore, was not simply a one-off act to get the universe going, but simultaneous with that act was the actualisation of all future events in the history of the universe. Since the act of creation was the simultaneous creation of every single event in the life of the universe, we regard the unfolding of the universe as a continuous creation in which every moment of the life of the universe is dependent on the creative act of the Creator. We depend , therefore, for every moment of our existence, on the Creator.

So no, you don't have freedom of choice. Every event in time, as you describe it, was created simultaneously. Which means that we just get to experience it unfolding in terms relative to us (incidentally at 60 frames a second, I believe - I wonder why god chose that frame rate??), like a movie :). This means that every event, every moment, every choice, experience, action, reaction; it's all predetermined. This means no free will. Which means that when you fail to live up to Jesus' teachings (as laid down by the church, of course) it is because god created all those moments in which it is happening.

And this is why it is important to lay out one's hypothesis for god before leaping into debate. If you do not have a valid hypothesis for god, not only can you not provide evidence for him, but you also have no way of explaining why it is you must act in the ways which he hopes for you to act (other than, because there's no reason to believe there isn't a god or that he doesn't want me to act in this way).

Fri, 15 Oct 2010 13:05:01 UTC | #533932