# Questions on Christianity (Again...) **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [August 30, 2010, 2:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952 "2010-08-30T02:13:22Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 21
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:28am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/401 "2010-09-05T02:28:36Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > The differnece is my question is asked specifically of YOU. Uh, okay. If that helps: I’m hereby asking specifically of YOU. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:29am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/402 "2010-09-05T02:29:34Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > **Aigonz** , since you are such a big fan of appeals to authority, here’s a really good one from Stephen Hawking which should really clear up any dispute over his position. > > > [@](#): > > > > "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing. > > > > "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. > > > > “It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going.” > > [Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493) That’s all very interesting, but perhaps you could refer to the article I quoted. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/403 "2010-09-05T02:30:16Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > The “fine tuning” canard? That’s the best you’ve got? > > Well the question was about design. The fine tuning argument is not an argument for design. > [@](#): > > Here’s one for you: > > The strong nuclear force constant: > if larger: no hydrogen would form; atomic nuclei for most life-essential elements would be unstable; thus, no life chemistry > if smaller: no elements heavier than hydrogen would form: again, no life chemistry This is still a canard. Life is adapted the universe, the universe is not adapted to life. Did you read Douglas Adams’ puddle analogy that I quoted above? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/404 "2010-09-05T02:31:34Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > **Aigonz** , since you are such a big fan of appeals to authority, here’s a really good one from Stephen Hawking which should really clear up any dispute over his position. > > > > [Stephen Hawking: God did not create Universe](http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493) > > That’s all very interesting, but perhaps you could refer to the article I quoted. I’m the one who linked it and quoted it. Is there some reason you wish to ignore this one, by the way? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/405 "2010-09-05T02:33:34Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > The differnece is my question is asked specifically of YOU. > > Uh, okay. If that helps: I’m hereby asking specifically of YOU. You asked me about God’s ‘opinion’. I asked about yours. Get it now? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/406 "2010-09-05T02:34:53Z")
> [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > That’s all very interesting, but perhaps you could refer to the article I quoted. > > I’m the one who linked it and quoted it. > > Is there some reason you wish to ignore this one, by the way? Not at all, Hawking has published mre than one opinion, clearly. That is not particularly unusual. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/407 "2010-09-05T02:37:36Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I’m the one who linked it and quoted it. > > > > Is there some reason you wish to ignore this one, by the way? > > Not at all, Hawking has published mre than one opinion, clearly. That is not particularly unusual. But there are many, many others. It is humourous none have been referred to. Tony Rothman (physicist): “When confronted with the order and beauty of the universe and the strange coincidences of nature, it’s very tempting to take the leap of faith from science into religion. I am sure many physicists want to. I only wish they would admit it.” Vera Kistiakowsky (MIT physicist): “The exquisite order displayed by our scientific understanding of the physical world calls for the divine.” ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/408 "2010-09-05T02:37:41Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > > Uh, okay. If that helps: I’m hereby asking specifically of YOU. > > You asked me about God’s ‘opinion’. I asked about yours. Get it now? You asked what my opinion would be if the majority agreed to remove a prohibition on child rape. I’m asking what your opinion would be if God agreed to remove it. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/409 "2010-09-05T02:38:52Z")
A personal favourite… Robert Jastrow (self-proclaimed agnostic): “For the scientist who has lived by his faith in the power of reason, the story ends like a bad dream. He has scaled the mountains of ignorance; he is about to conquer the highest peak; as he pulls himself over the final rock, he is greeted by a band of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries.” ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/410 "2010-09-05T02:39:52Z")
And Mr Hawking again… “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/411 "2010-09-05T02:41:27Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > You asked me about God’s ‘opinion’. I asked about yours. Get it now? > > You asked what my opinion would be if the majority agreed to remove a prohibition on child rape. I’m asking what your opinion would be if God agreed to remove it. Ah but God would not. Because God is morally perfect. Because the rape of a 3 year old is morally wrong. Now your answer? ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:46am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/412 "2010-09-05T02:46:22Z")
Another finely tuned constant is the strong nuclear force (the force that holds atoms together). The Sun “burns” by fusing hydrogen (and higher elements) together. When the two hydrogen atoms fuse, 0.7% of the mass of the hydrogen is converted into energy. If the amount of matter converted were slightly smaller—0.6% instead of 0.7%— a proton could not bond to a neutron, and the universe would consist only of hydrogen. With no heavy elements, there would be no rocky planets and no life. If the amount of matter converted were slightly larger—0.8%, fusion would happen so readily and rapidly that no hydrogen would have survived from the Big Bang. Again, there would be no solar systems and no life. The number must lie exactly between 0.6% and 0.8% (Martin Rees (Cosmologist and Astrophysicist), Just Six Numbers). So is this ‘design’ or a pure coincidence? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/413 "2010-09-05T02:47:46Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > Ah but God would not. Because God is morally perfect. Because the rape of a 3 year old is morally wrong. If you can deduce that a morally perfect God “would not” do that because you already know the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong, then what’s to stop an atheist from _ **likewise** _ already knowing the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong? > [@](#): > > Now your answer? As far as I can tell, I already gave you my answer. You asked: “If the majority of people agreed to remove a prohibition against child rape, would you agree with such a law?” I answered: “no, I would not.” I then added that I’d find such a rape objectionable regardless of the majority’s opinion and regardless of God’s opinion. I can’t make that much clearer. ---
**Author:** ![aigonz](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/4491bb/32.png) [@aigonz](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/aigonz)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 2:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/414 "2010-09-05T02:56:30Z")
> [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > [@aigonz](#): > > > > Ah but God would not. Because God is morally perfect. Because the rape of a 3 year old is morally wrong. > > If you can deduce that a morally perfect God “would not” do that because you already know the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong, then what’s to stop an atheist from _ **likewise** _ already knowing the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong? Nothing. An atheist will almost certainly know this is wrong. He just won’t admit why. > [@](#): > > Now your answer? As far as I can tell, I already gave you my answer. You asked: “If the majority of people agreed to remove a prohibition against child rape, would you agree with such a law?” I answered: “no, I would not.” I then added that I’d find such a rape objectionable regardless of the majority’s opinion and regardless of God’s opinion. I can’t make that much clearer. [/QUOTE] OK. But you still haven’t explained the basis for your objection. Neither have you explained the universal abhorrence of a rape of a 3 year old. There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition. It is inate in us. This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose. It is an objecctive morality. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 3:10am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/415 "2010-09-05T03:10:29Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](#): > > > > If you can deduce that a morally perfect God “would not” do that because you already know the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong, then what’s to stop an atheist from _ **likewise** _ already knowing the rape of a 3-year-old is wrong? > > Nothing. An atheist will almost certainly know this is wrong. He just won’t admit why. Well, enlighten us: what’s the reason why – as you see it – such a rape is wrong? I’m not following your argument. [QUOTE=aigonz] There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition. It is inate in us. This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose. [/QUOTE] No, there’s an evolutionary purpose. Assume for the sake of argument that, say, your daughter is three. The odds that she’ll grow up to be a healthy adult who can pass on your genes in future generations _ **improve** _ if you sign on for a culture that enshrines a “don’t rape three-year-olds” value. So long as you weren’t planning to rape any three-year-olds, such a prohibition doesn’t really cost _ **you** _ anything; it just helps your daughter (and cousins, and siblings, and so on) not get traumatized or killed or whatever. ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 3:18am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/416 "2010-09-05T03:18:11Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 2\> If you wish to look for deceit, study the history of evolution. The list of deceit and hoax is damning. Nonsense. There are however quite a few creationists who see imaginary flaws out of ignorance, or simply lie. > [@aigonz](#): > > 3\> Benevolence IS a moral dilemna for atheism, and for evolution in particular. Evolution cannot explain beenvolent actions. Full stop. More nonsense. Evolution explains benevolence just fine, as has been repeatedly explained to you. Nor is benevolence a moral problem for atheism. > [@aigonz](#): > > 4\> If religion has been a source for evil, then atheism has been a source for infintely more. Nore people dies in the 20th century alone from atheistic/secular humanist ideology that from all religions for the history of mankind. Ah, the classic attempt to equate Communism and atheism. They are of course not remotely the same. And no, I don’t agree that atheism, or even communism has caused as much evil as religion. Religion has turned humanity into a twisted, life hating, intelligence hating, knowledge hating species. A mad, crippled species primarily dedicated to a grim hatred of all forms of pleasure that aren’t gained by greed and the infliction of suffering. I doubt that humanity can ever recover from how warped religion has made it. > [@aigonz](#): > > Nothing. An atheist will almost certainly know this is wrong. He just won’t admit why. :rolleyes: And what secret reason do you think we have? ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 3:20am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/417 "2010-09-05T03:20:46Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition. It is inate in us. This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose. It is an objecctive morality. I don’t think you understand the situation. Being protective of children is obviously evolutionarily advantageous. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 4:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/418 "2010-09-05T04:15:26Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > 4\> If religion has been a source for evil, then atheism has been a source for infintely more. Nore people dies in the 20th century alone from atheistic/secular humanist ideology that from all religions for the history of mankind. Atheism is not an ideology. It’s an answer to a single question: does this person believe in a god(s)? If the answer is “no,” you can’t get from there to the motivation for any action. Now, secular humanism _is_ an ideology, but the only people who might die from its ideology would be people who were dying and suffering, and the secular humanist would choose to help them bring it to an end more quickly. > [@aigonz](#): > > OK. But you still haven’t explained the basis for your objection. Neither have you explained the universal abhorrence of a rape of a 3 year old. > > There is no purely naturalistic explanation for this seeming prohibition. It is inate in us. This is not an evolutionary response, because it serves no evolutionary purpose. It is an objecctive morality. So you demonstrate that you misunderstand both quantum physics and the theory of evolution, in the same thread. Why do I object to the rape of a small child? Because it harms the child. Why do I object to that? Because I have empathy for my fellow humans and want to make this world I live in a better place. Why do I desire that? Because humans evolved as a social species and we have an innate desire to get along in order to survive better. Why did we evolve as a social species? Because the populations of social apes were able to survive. These are all naturalistic explanations - how far back do you want to go? ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 5:53am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/419 "2010-09-05T05:53:04Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > > [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](#): > > > > I’m the one who linked it and quoted it. > > > > Is there some reason you wish to ignore this one, by the way? > > Not at all, Hawking has published mre than one opinion, clearly. That is not particularly unusual. He has not published contradictory opinions in this regard. The linked statements in this thread do not contradict. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [September 5, 2010, 5:54am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952/420 "2010-09-05T05:54:09Z")
> [@aigonz](#): > > And Mr Hawking again… > > “Then we shall… be able to take part in the discussion of the question of why it is that we and the universe exist. If we find the answer to that, it would be the ultimate triumph of human reason - for then we would know the mind of God.” Hawking is an atheist. He was speaking figuratively. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=20) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/questions-on-christianity-again/551952.md?page=22)