Three things I read
By Mark Vernon on Sunday, September 4 2011, 07:52 - Personal observations - Permalink
Roger Scruton on icons (super-thoughtful piece in Prospect)
The growth of the advertising industry and of the marketable image has been greeted from the very beginning by protests from social commentators, fearing what Marx called “commodity fetishism”—in other words, the diversion of our energies from those free activities that are “ends in themselves” towards the world of addictive desires. Marx took the idea of fetishism from Feuerbach, who believed that all religion involves this state of mind, in which we animate the world with our own emotions, so placing our life “outside” of ourselves, and becoming enslaved to the puppets of our own imagination.
Pankaj Mishra on 9/11 (long reflective piece in the Guardian)
The sense of mad overkill, intellectual as well as military, grows more oppressive when you realise that, though al-Qaida murdered many people on 9/11 and undermined American self-esteem, the capacity of a few homicidal fanatics to seriously harm a large and powerful country such as the US was always limited. There is nothing surprising about their spectacular lack of success in rousing Muslim masses anywhere (as distinct from inciting a few no-hopers into suicidal terrorism). Their fantasy of a universal caliphate was always more likely to provoke fierce Muslim resistance than the globalising project of the west. Over-reaction to al-Qaida was by far the bigger danger to the west throughout the last decade; and, as it happened, groups of rootless conspirators, initially cultishly small and marginal, quickly proliferated around the world as a direct result of western military and ideological excesses after 9/11.
George Steiner on proofs for God (review of the arguments in the TLS, noting recent new developments)
The existence of our universe, its physical characteristics, the biological evolution of organic life make it inherently and cumulatively more plausible, more likely that God exists than the opposite... Swinburne argues eloquently that atheism offers no adequate counter-explanation. Any argument for possibility and the probable does nevertheless remain unquantifiable and impressionistic.
Incidentally, Steiner includes man-of-the-moment William Lane Craig, the philosopher no new atheist, apparently, wants to debate.
Recuperating a line of argument crucial to medieval Islam, W.L. Craig affirms the necessary causal foundation of the cosmos. This ultimate is itself without natural basis. The Big Bang and the laws of entropy, moreover, prove that our cosmos has its origins in time (Augustine would have concurred). This, again, legitimizes the assumption of a divine builder. But does it point to a personal God accessible to human apprehension?
(Image: Christ Acheiropoietos)














Comments
I find it completely acceptable that well known atheists refuse to engage in a "debate" with Craig.
Why? Because the man is a one-dimensional dingbat - a hollow man.
Google William Lane Craig the Bible and God Justifies Genocide, and find out why.
John, one strange opinion is not justification for avoiding a debate. If anything, it argues in favour of it - the New Atheists have made careers out of ridiculing such ideas, after all.
People who haven't come across Craig before might search instead for his debates with Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens for a more complete picture of what he thinks and how he debates (and why other new atheists are scared of him).
Re the Mishra piece: anybody who would like a serious retrospective on the results of 9/11 could watch the thoughtful Rachel Maddow special on same.
In regards to the paragraph on proofs for God...does this guy really think he can figure out the answer to everything?! Why is he so willing to say that since the atheists can't find a scientific reasoning behind how the universe was created so it MUUUUUUUST mean that god does, in fact, exist. He might need to take a deeper look within himself to figure out why he thinks he 'needs' the satisfaction of knowing that HIS god still has control over his life since he can't do it himself. He's scared of being alone....shocker!! :|
New atheists aren't scared of WLC. WLC is the current incarnation of Gish Galloping. He makes so many points that are barely sustainable by reason that it takes more time to explain why they're wrong.
Furthermore, there is a Youtube video of a live group debate involving WLC, Dawkins and Dennett.