English

I've always enjoyed listening to CBC Tapestry and this afternoon's broadcast of the interview with Richard Dawkins is no exception.

Professor Dawkins said in the interview:

There is no compassion in nature and it can be extremely cruel.

Yes, of course. Survival of the fittest. And yet, throughout human history, there have been countless examples of mankind's compassion for one another, and compassion has survived all this time. So either the notion of "survival of the fittest" is wrong, or compassion is not a sign of weakness.

On his comments about the giraffe's vagus nerve disproving the theory of intelligent design, for which I found The Telegraph's article describing the experiment here, I wonder if anyone has ever attempted an operation to reconnect the giraffe's vagus nerve directly, bypassing the lengthy path down the long neck, down to the heart and up. I don't know anything about biology, but from my experience as a computer software designer, when smart developers try to reinvent what they consider to be a "bad design", it quite often leads to disastrous consequences.

Towards the end, he said:

(43:00) I don't think that there is a god of any kind, but if I were looking for any kind of god, it would be something far beyond the reach of the human imagination.

Spot on, Professor Dawkins! Thus enters revelation. I think Richard Dawkins' interactions with the Church of England might have done him some good.

Yes, belief in God has given birth to some "bad apples" throughout human history. But that's no reason to reject God. Richard Dawkins may feel satisfying in his knowledge of evolution and natural selection (without God's causal influence), but personally I can't find much satisfaction in the belief that I am merely a fluke of nature and my existence is ultimately meaningless beyond this life time.

On the other hand, I find somewhat of an endearing quality in these atheists, in that if by mere chance they manage to do some good--that is, a good that is pleasing to God--it's not for fear of the afterlife that they do it. "Because whoever wants to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will save it. (Luke 9:24)" It is better for one to reject God in the open, and in his heart does the will of God, than to say that one believes in God and yet does not keep His commandments. Perhaps in a sense, Richard Dawkins is a better servant of God than me, and for that reason I will continue to watch "fleas" like him with interest. Yes, Professor Dawkins calls the others "fleas" for capitalizing on his work, but I see him as also fitting into this category of "fleas" for capitalizing on God.

Listen to the full interview, originally here:

...not to mention: rude and obnoxious.

So, a few days ago, Christopher Hitchens went on the CBC Q program,


and again he posed this challenge: "Tell me of a moral statement that can be made or a moral action undertaken by a believer that could not have been made or performed by a non-believer." Mister Hitchens' contention, of course, is that you don't need God to be able to determine what's right and wrong.

Arguably, the challenge is no more sensical than if he were to ask us to show him a jagged line and try to convince him that it is not jagged at all but is in fact a very smooth line. That is to say, it is non-sensical until you enlarge your perspective. I'm thinking of fractals.

On the one hand, the answer is incredibly simple, if you're a believer: the ultimate moral action that you could undertake is to worship God, because He is the source of all morality. But, on the other hand, if you're are a non-believer, you and I will probably have very different opinions as to what's moral and what's not. So the challenge is doomed to begin with. Sometimes the two sets of opinions do overlap, however. I'm trying to allude to a fact that it was the influence of Christianity that lead to the abolition of the practice of cannibalism in Fiji in the nineteenth century. I'm not entirely sure whether this fact says more about Christianity versus other pagan beliefs rather than believers versus non-believers, but nevertheless it's interesting to note.


Looking at Hitchen's challenge from a different perspective, consider the Penrose stairs, which seems like a geometrical contradiction in nature: it's forever going up or forever going down depending on which direction you start walking.


If you're mathematically inclined, you've probably already realized where I'm going with this.

You don't need God to determine what's right and wrong?
Imagine, if you will, that your universe is restricted to only 2 dimensions, and you encounter Penrose's stairs. And you say: "hmm, it looks like a loop. I'll take a stroll around this loop and get some exercise." Your neighbour tries to warn you, saying "Don't do it, for if you do it, you will surely die." But you say, "Ahh, that's rubbish. I'll prove to you that I won't die." And you walk, and when you take that extra step at one of those corners, you fall off the edge of your universe and die. And as you're falling, you discover that, although your neighbour may not have fully understood what he was saying, what he said was true.



I believe that any attempt to convince militant non-believers, like Christopher Hitchens, to believe will result in utter failure, unless a miracle happens. These people are talking from a completely different, and often contradictory, rule book. There are some truths that you know through your senses. Other truths, you know through reasoning and experimentation. Yet another class of truths, you may only know through revelation. Some day, science may probably prove all of the revealed truths of religion, but--considering the immensity of the universe--likely not in yours or my life time. So in the mean time, what are we believers to do? We continue to believe, and we use people like Christopher Hitchens, Richard Dawkins, and Sam Harris, as motivation to test, check, and understand more about our beliefs.

Yes, as rude and obnoxious as they are, in the end--and by this, I don't mean to sound arrogant in any way, shape or form, because I'm fairly certain they are a lot smarter than me--they probably do serve a useful purpose, for themselves and for society.

Thanks for the pointer, Mike Liccione!
Not!

You’re St. Jerome! You’re a passionate Christian, fiercely devoted to Jesus Christ and his Church. You are willing to labor long hours in the Lord’s vineyard, and you have little patience with those who are less willing or able to work as you do. Your passions often carry you into temptation zones of wrath, lust, and pride. Find out which Church Father you are at The Way of the Fathers!

I would have thought St. Augustine would be a more appropriate fit.
Now, I have to find out who the hell heavens St. Jerome is.
Thanks alot!