Religion & Ethics: Content from Across the ABC




Date/Time 29 Dec 2014 7:49:42am
Suzanne, I'd have to disagree with you that James' and Kate's comments were particularly lucid, rational or well founded.

In terms of foundation, Kate made a claim about God beliefs and goodness that was not backed up with any evidence; both Kate and James made comments that were assertions without any underlying argument or evidence.

In terms of reason, perhaps there was some rationality employed, but the comments seemed to reflect strong biases against religious thought which clouded the commentators' ability to make clear, objective statements backed up by evidence and strong argument.

In terms of lucidity, at certain times I found the comments difficult to parse and ambiguous - certainly there was a lot of talk about concepts of moral philosophy and I felt that both posters displayed a distinct naïveté about essential areas of that subject.

As for C.S. Lewis, I think your speculation about believers clinging to him like 'driftwood', is wishful thinking. Most of the atheists that I dialogue with bring up Richard Dawkins much more than any Christian brings up Lewis and I think that mention of either is simply a reflection of the importance of these figures to the 'God Debate' in the 20th and 21st centuries. Of course, you're free to dream up atheists clinging to Dawkins, using the same logic, but that would be a mistake wouldn't it?