Share |
The truths they don't want you to read....

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

Theological debates

Rev David Robertson of the Free Church is quite right in his attack on UHI for inviting Prof Dawkins to come and speak about his book the God Delusion.

As Rev Robertson rightly highlights, the UHI is also hosting a lecture from Rev Dr Andrew McGowan, principal of the Highland Theological College, who will be putting the counter-argument.

As Rev Robertson says, "All that is going to happen is Dawkins' people will go to see him and Christians will go to listen to John Lennox.”

"What would be more balanced is having them on at the same time, that makes a whole lot more sense."

Absolutely correct; let’s have a full and open debate, discussion and argument about the issues, and let the public decide through the medium of informed advice, constructive criticism and the power of rational thought.

What good is there if the public decide, by their own free choice, to attend a meeting at which an individual dictates a view of the world, and the spiritual context without allowing alternative interpretations to be heard? You are simply telling those who attend what they want to hear – and what the speaker wants them to think - and not helping develop or disseminate the argument in any meaningful way.

For those reasons, I think the Rev Robertson should therefore look very closely at how he delivers his Church services, and the message he is communicating, before criticising others.

In the meantime, Rev Robertson will presumably oppose Rev Dr McGowan’s lecture for exactly the same reasons as he opposes Prof Dawkins. I’m not holding my breath.

13 comments:

Anonymous said...

As ususal, you disappoint when it comes to spiritual matters, Angus. The world is biased against God - and has been since Adam sinned. Rev R is simply trying to redress the balance.

SYSkeptic said...

I assume anonymous is being ironic!? Sadly, the lecture is to be in Inverness rather than Lewis, which is probably more in need of enlightenment. Perhaps one day the Dawk will grace these islands with his presence, and then verily will the scribes and the pharisees wail and gnash their teeth lest the people should get to hear some real facts. Like maybe not everything in the bible is literally true...?

Anonymous said...

I would prefer to think the world is quite in acceptance of God - the presence of which is a common factor in all the worlds various religions. In some small quarters of the world there are little groups of the unenlightened who still practice blind faith and refuse the accept any deviation from the written word - or as actually happens here deliberate stress on certain sentences to suit their bigotry.

Anonymous said...

Dawkins is a egomaniac, picking on the easiest target that an academic could possibly pick on. This does not make him a visionary, it makes him a bully. Still, it provides the hysterical secularists with a champion to expound their own versions of intolerance.

Anonymous said...

i would prefer to think that too, and i would also like to think i had a million pounds in the bank... but unfortunately i can't because it goes against the fact that i haven't put that money in - the bumbl;e bee cannot fly is a scientific fact (according to the laws of aerodynamics)

Anonymous said...

9.11 i would prefer to think that too, and i would also like to think i had a million pounds in the bank... but unfortunately i can't because it goes against the fact that i haven't put that money in - the bumbl;e bee cannot fly is a scientific fact (according to the laws of aerodynamics,) and maybe Syskeptic would like to tell me which parts of the Bible are not literally true - he seems to know

Anonymous said...

Of course the bible is true. All of it. That is why I do not eat shellfish or pork and I avoid women at certain times of the month. I grow a beard, as the bible demands. There is no coveting of other people's asses in this house.

I also never judge people on how they observe the Sabbath which I can observe or not observe as I wish (Colossians Chapter 2, verse 16).

eyoop said...

anon 10:04, you sound a bit intolerant yourself...

SYSkeptic said...

Well looking at it objectively the bible was written over a period of many centuries, and is a collection of myths, legends, history and poetry. To a non-Christian it's no more "true" than Homer's Iliad or the Bhagavad Gita. All societies have their creation myths, and we in the West have traditionally gone along with the Jewish version which appears in the old testament. If you're looking for a specific statement in the bible that's not literally true you could start with the genealogies which trace Jesus's descent from Adam (who was supposedly created in week 1) in a few dozen generations. We know from science that life on earth developed over billions of years. Ergo the bible can't be literally true. Believing it to be so is like insisting that the earth is flat or than you have fairies living at the bottom of your garden. You may believe these things but those of us who have given the matter some thought will politely decline to agree with you unless you can produce some evidence.

Anonymous said...

Bumblebee: That's an old, and rather pathetic, myth.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bumblebee#Flight

If that's the best you can do re: proof that your God exists, then I feel pretty sorry for you, mate.

Anonymous said...

syskeptic - interesting that you should mention that about the world being round - the oldest book in the bible (Job) actually confirms this fact.

Anonymous said...

9:54 just goes to prove how often science changes its mind (usually to fall in line with the bible)

Anonymous said...

eg? Job (widely recognised as ONE of the oldest books) theory of transpiration: the rain comes down from heaven and does not return to it without watering the earth (God to Job - well he put the system in place - he should know)