Islam sees Jesus (Isa) as a Prophet and do use the idea of a Messiah about him, but the term isn’t used in a way that coincides with Judaic and/or Christian usage. For one thing, the Messiah didn’t succeed as saviour of the Jews. For another, as much as Muslims might see him as having succeeded, they posit the Mahdi as another Messiah still to come, to save us all – obviously, Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah and that he came to save us all. So, Muslims are waiting for their saviour, but it’s a different one to the one, just as it is between Jews and Christians.

Most important here, Muslims regard any view of Jesus as the Son of God as blasphemy – Trinity is heresy, and therefore Islam and Christianity start from very different philosophical bases, even if they have vague consensus over some historical points.

Re Isaac and Ishmael – the issue here is a Christian one. Romans 9:7 makes clear that it is through Isaac that God made His promise, and not Ishmael. They were only both Jewish to the extent that there was Judaism which, being before Moses, is a stretch; so Jews won’t accept commonality as such either.

In terms of your last question, that comes back to the question of whether Jesus was God Incarnate – for Christians, this is possible and true, but for Muslims, this is blasphemy because it offends against their conception of God.

Somewhat more than ’subtle variations’. Romans 9:7 sets the stakes – Christians trace their lineage from Isaac and not Abraham. Ishmael (the other son) was the first Islamic prophet, and so the line starts with a different path. Even more fundamental is the difference with regard to Jesus – for Christians, He is Jesus Christ, i.e., the promised Messiah and God made flesh. For Muslims, he is simply another Prophet; the Christian view is idolatory. The difference is massive, as to are the differences in worldviews that flow from them.

And John’s right about Bin Laden — not matter what your subtle variations, they agree that the God of Moses and Abraham is the God of Jesus… They only differ over Mohammed and, as John says, interpretation.

I only wish to take issue with one point in your response: “… trying to combine being a strict-materialist Darwinian with being a harm-principle liberal is tough at the best of times…”

I absolutely and fundamentally disagree. People have a conscience whether that is part of nurture or pragmatic evolutionary nature. Liberalism is the belief in ultimate freedom — that sits uncomfortably with the idea that it’s freedom within constraints set out by theology. The rule of law is not a product of religion and that is why you think it is metaphysical. Rules aren’t there because they are some ethereal ‘right’ or ‘wrong’. Christians do not have a monopoly on “do unto others”. Darwin’s theory (in the scientific sense) is not set within any arbitrary rules and describes what has, and is, happening. True freedom within the constraints set out by the free majority is what society has developed over time. Darwin’s freedom and libertarianism are absolutely compatible.

The end!

I also think Leanne and John are both right that the conversation has reached its natural end.

No problems! Its a free service.

What’s your theory? Is it the Adam and Eve/Big Flood/Moses gets the ten commandments thing?

>

They both have the same God don’t they?

Re Bush and bin Laden: it might’ve escaped your notice that one’s a Methodist and one’s a Wahhabist, but other than that…

Re Intelligent Design: it’s highly unlikely that most theists have even heard of ID, let alone believe in it. It’s perfectly possible to be a Christian and believe in Darwinian evolution – ask the Pope.

Personally I think religion was created through story telling and myths. In the days before writing, stories must have been told throughout the generations. Many of these myths went on to become our Gods. They were constants in peoples lives and its much easier to work together if you share the same culture. And in the days before police stations a priest/king figure would have made communal living run a lot easier.

But today there is no need for those old myths. We have government and finance and laws. We have order. We don’t live in fear.

We also have the situation where Bush and Bin Laden both believe in the same God, and yet are at war with each other over their own interpretation of that same God.

Anyway, there’s a good program on BBC2 this Thursday with Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins (Horizon 9PM) both talking about Intelligent Design.

“Horizon tells the story of how one of science’s greatest theories is facing one of its greatest threats. The theory of evolution is under attack from a controversial new idea called intelligent design, an idea that claims to give an alternative explanation for the origin of life on earth. This new movement claims to be scientific but to many it threatens to replace science with God. Now some of its most high profile critics – Sir David Attenborough and Richard Dawkins amongst them – are speaking out in an attempt to halt the movement’s rise and keep religion out of science.”

As might be plain, I’m hardly innocent on that score.

“I like your final argument.”

Me too, ‘though it’s hardly original.

“It is neat and it seems to make sense.”

Not only does it seem to, it does!

“Until you get down to the basic confusion. There is no need to accept a metaphysical being or belief structure in order to know that hurting others is wrong.”

Really? Please, Gav, explain how hurting others is ‘wrong’. Wrong for whom? Wrong for those hurting people, or wrong for those that get hurt? Why should we care, if there is no metaphysical basis? If all there is is survival, and we know that resources are always scarce, then surely some will survive and some will not? (Is it because you know it in your heart that to harm other people is wrong? If it is, please tell me how this doesn’t mark a substantive difference between species?) Please, continue…

“That said, evolution requires species to endeavour to survive, but why would I survive despite my peers? Enjoying life is not something that we must do, but it is something I would prefer to do.”

First, discuss ‘peers’ with reference to your previous assertion that humans have no superiority to other species… You say later on that we need to consume other life, but isn’t that surviving “despite [your] peers,” given your own logic?

Second, your distinction between ‘enjoying life’ and ’surviving’ is so stark as to miss the logic of the evolutionary goal. Your evolutionary purpose is to maximise your genetic reproduction – which means getting the edge in terms of mating and access to material resources.

Third, going back to your initial assertion that ‘hurting others’ is ‘wrong’. You’ve made no rationalisation of this point. If you believe (as you assert you do) in a purely material worldview, then the only basis for this imperative is that it serves your purposes as a being.

Now, on a very simple level, we know that ‘hurting others’ isn’t always ‘wrong’, if ‘wrong’ means irrational in Gav’s-genes’-promoting terms. If somebody is going to kill you, hurting them seems pretty ‘right’ at that point. So ‘hurting others’ isn’t always ‘wrong’ – one can act to the detriment of others sometimes.

What happens if (say) somebody is controlling a resource (say, oil) greatly necessary to your prosperity and therefore to the success of your future generations – as a consequence, they will be able to restrict your future for their advantage? Would you be willing to harm them then?

You could attempt an evolutinary social psychologist’s defence here – that we observe in monkey groups the possibility of altruism. But then we also observe extreme violence to external intrusion to the group, even if that intrusion is peaceful. It is natural to co-operate and it is also natural to hurt. So, no luck there.

And here is the problem: moral statements about ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ rest on metaphysical grounds. And human beings are equipped, uniquely among species (as far as we know), to wonder after the metaphysical, and strive for ideals that go beyond themselves. We have been given, again as far as we know, unique powers of language to allow not only for co-operate but to wonder after the metaphysical and how that structures our place in the universe. No other animal, no matter how intelligent, has all of these traits.

“An atheistic Spain would not have felt the need to plunder or expand its empire — treating others with less respect is a trait that we can level at religion, not at nontheists.”

Consider, with reference to officially, ideologically nontheist Soviet Russia and its treatment of anybody ranging from Kulaks to Chechens to Jews.

“If the Conquistadors had visited South America without a religious zeal that led them to try to convert, why would they automatically have no morals and be compelled to destroy? They wouldn’t.”

As their morality was a Christian one, and the thought experiment is simply that they were shorn of their Christianity, then it seems fairly logical that they would be left with their earthly goals which, let’s face it, was to rip off the Incas.

You seem to think that a lack of culture (however derived; some forms of Greek culture weren’t theistic, but did entail faith in metaphysical assertions) will always result in human nature bursting through in a festival of peace, love, and understanding. After the century of Perm Camp 36, Belsen, and Brother No.1, a little scepticism might perhaps be in order.

“On Christian Rome vs. Roman-God Rome, I mispoke… Clearly, though, non-Christian Rome was as, if not more, successful and civilised.”

More successful? Depends on what period, has to be said, and even more what criteria. The life of the average Roman is somewhat happier today than it was 2,000 years ago, I’d guess.

More civilised? This was a city that rested on thousands of slaves living in utter squalor, that prospered by invading all neighbouring lands and seeking to run them dry of wealth (check out how many tens of thousands of slaves died in Spanish mines), and in which parents would leave babies to perish on doorsteps if they were surplus to requirements.

“On scientists, yes they were not anomalies of their time and believed in God, but that does not change the fact that Galileo’s efforts were draconianly dealt with by the Pope. Religion (except Hinduism/Buddhism) does not like dealing with truth when it contradicts what they have decided to believe.”

Ah, I thought we’d get to Galileo’s trial. It’s a great story, but the full history tells us far more about the way established wisdom becomes institutionalised and scientists become invested in it, and so defend it when challenged. The role of the Church is accurate, but should be seen in the context that pretty much all science, especially in Italy, took place under the Church’s auspices (no one else cared, but obviously the Church was the most evil and reactionary body, because that fits our prejudices, doesn’t it?). But it was the other scientists that knifed him, to protect their own work. Just as a University might fire a controversial academic today, or the media hung him out to dry, so too did the Church with Galileo. (cf. the philosophy of science work of Kuhn, on paradigms)

Obviously though, Eastern religions are much better at accomodating science. That’s why the Industrial Revolution happened in England.

“No Christian can really care how the universe works because they are always allowing an unprovable to be their basis for existence.”

If I were a PC type of person, I’d call this a horrifically Christophobic generalisation, not to mention completely bleedin’ daft, given the preceding paragraph accepted that some of the great scientists were believing Christians. Surely they, erm, cared about how the universe works?

“Arthur C Clarke said that any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic (or words to that affect). Would it be unfair to extrapolate the same suggestion for the supposed miracles of God? It would seem the epitomy of low-brow to compare God to a Stargate character, but what would be the difference between a creature actually capable of creating the universe and God?”

As you don’t believe the miracles could have happened, it’s rather a moot point. In order to discuss this question (fair though it is), I’d have to posit that the miracles happened – and you objected to that kind of discussion last time.

“On the assumption of existence, it is a common theme that theists start a line of argument with “If God exists…”. That is the wrong way to look at it no matter what your point. A Christian God does not have any impact on your life, my life or anyone elses unless He exists. And there’s no reason to assume that unless you have a revelation of your own.”

Not to be any more tedious than I already am (which would be no small feat), but you did say there was no impact “whether true or not” – I was simply pointing out (as you now state) that His existence/truth would be quite important.

I won’t go over the fallacy of this need-for-personal-revelation stuff again – there are limits even to my tedium.

“On love. I have been in love and I don’t think it is unfair to describe it as a magical and moving experience. That doesn’t stop it, though, from being anything but chemical/biological. It may seem sad to you, but not for me — it is more wonderous, surely, that biology created such exciting feelings and emotions for us.”

Strangely, I think it rather underestimates love to consider it as another plain ole’ chemical/biological function – I don’t find urination magical or moving (well, maybe if you’re really desperate).

I guess a question back here would be: do you think that other animals can experience love in the same way that humans can? (Myself, I think love is a natural aspect of our consciousness of our morality, which in itself is a unique feature of humanity. In that sense, I don’t think it can ever be truly extinguished without our losing our humanity – we might numb the pain it can bring, but the underlying anxiety will remain. Our having these features is what sets us apart from all other creation so far encountered.)

“The oxymoron about the superiority of humanity is to suggest that your arrogance about being a better animal than a pig or gorilla is not arrogance! We know that we are more intelligent than any other animal on Earth due to brain-size to body-size ratio — that doesn’t make humans better or any more deserving of God’s attention and/or love.”

Sorry to nit-pick, but that isn’t an oxymoron. An oxymoron would be “brief Blimpish comment.” You’re suggestion is that I’m wrong.

Now, obviously I’m not: you’ve accepted that we are different in psychology and intellegence. I’d go further and say that that intelligence has allowed us to develop functions that are categorically more advanced than any other species – the ability to have this discussion, for a start, let alone the inclination to do so.

Now, difference does not necessarily make for ’superior’, but you again have accepted that it is justified for us to consume other animals (let alone harvest them for that purpose) for our own survival and development. So, your practical view assumes that we have a prior right to grow than others. I assume that you would not be content to see people in an African village be eaten every night by a lion (say)? Why not, if the lion is simply exercising the same right as we have?

If you accept the right of humans to live off other animals (with whom, let it not be forgotten, we are equals), then I assume you would be content to let some humans eat other humans if that is what they find the most effective means of their survival?

And as you don’t believe in Him and think those of us who do are ignoramuses, I rather think that you should pass over in silence the question of who is or is not deserving of God’s love. This brings me neatly to a paragraph I skipped earlier:

“And this answers your question about harming animals. We must accept that life survives by consuming other life. You betray your Christian bias when you ask whether I am a vegan. In a purely materialistic sense why is an animal’s life more valuable than a plant’s? I must, as must all humans, accept that I will have an impact on those around me. Ideally, the negative impact of my existence will be as little as possible but I shouldn’t alter my life (by becoming vegan/vegetarian) to suit some ideal.”

“I betray my Christian bias,” eh? And so do you, when you talk up harm-principle liberalism – like love and marriage, you can’t have one without the other. I just acknowledge mine.

“In a purely materialistic sense why is an animal’s life more valuable than a plant’s?” It depends which plant or animal you are. If you’re a rosebush, bees are probably more important than other plants are. If you’re an aardvark, ants and termites are a winner. If you’re a rabbit, lettuces are pretty cool. Shock horror, we find that there’s a hierarchy in the universe even in materialism – or especially in materialism. Now, other species have their hierarchy, just as we have ours. But here’s the thing – in materialistic terms, my animals might be worth more to me than people I don’t know – because, as you allude, evolution is not something we consciously do; but we’re just like animals, we achieve it by looking after our own.

“Ideally, the negative impact of my existence will be as little as possible but I shouldn’t alter my life (by becoming vegan/vegetarian) to suit some ideal.” Again, for somebody who doesn’t do metaphysics, you’re big on setting out moral statements – what other animal lives its life by seeking no impact on the world? Have you ever seen what impact termites have? (At any rate, if there is no God and no metaphysical existence, and if the ‘ideal’ is to have minimal impact, the logical life path is suicide.)

So, again, we’re left with some horrific contradictions – trying to combine being a strict-materialist Darwinian with being a harm-principle liberal is tough at the best of times, but to then thrown in a radical-speciesist aspect makes your job all the harder. Good luck.