I'm something of a Mysterian myself, but find Derbyshire's argument from biology weak, principally because it is based on an interpretation of the phrase "made in the image and likeness of God" that strikes me as utterly jejune. Humans are not made in the image of God physically - God has no body, for God's sake! We are made in the image of God because we have a personality (or those of us who believe such believe it for that reason). And maybe other creatures are also made in the image of God to the extent that they have personality, too.
I also wonder about the built-in English prejudice against Catholics that he speaks of. What say you, Maxine?
About the "built-in English prejudice against catholics", you mean, Frank, or religion/biology in general?
ReplyDeleteThere is certainly a lot of high-level suspicion of catholics, resulting from tudor and stuart history -- to do with succession to the throne, etc. This is not just English, though -- someone in Holland (?) just had to renounce his place in line for the throne in order to marry a catholic. So I suppose it is more of a "protestant" prejudice than particularly "English"?
However, at the level I think it is important, i.e. ordinary people, I don't think this prejudice exists. It is pretty common to find a catholic chapel or area within a C of E church in England, for example.
As for religion v science, or religion and science, I think I will take a rain check on that one!
I also wonder about what he says about the British attitude toward intellectuals. After all, the country produces enough of them - and there's even that phrase "the British intellectual establishment."
ReplyDeleteAs for the Catholic stuff, well a Catholic still can't be PM, right.
No wonder you took a rain check on the other business!
Humans are not made in the image of God physically - God has no body, for God's sake! We are made in the image of God because we have a personality (or those of us who believe such believe it for that reason).
ReplyDeleteSince no two personalities are exactly the same, just as the genetic codes of no two people are exactly the same, you're suggesting God is a sort of multifarious schizophrenic. ;)
You're not serious? God is unique. Each of us is unique. Our uniqueness is what we have in common with God. It hardly means that God is each of us. You would have made a grand fundmentalist, Noel.
ReplyDeleteIf you equate fundamentalism with fanaticism, I guess a fanatical atheist could be a fundamentalist - just swap sides, trade one belief for another, but not believing in God doesn't necessarily make you a fanatic.
ReplyDeleteIf all atheists are fanatics, then anyone with any convictions at all could also be termed a fanatic and that's just silly. It reads like a technique to be used against atheists. As Hoffer admits, fanaticism was a Judaic-Christian invention. ;)
And on the subject of religious fundamentalism and how you avoid it, which parts of the Bible do you cherry pick? If major parts of the story, how it all supposedly began for example - Adam born without a mother, world created in 6 days, Earth six thousand years old - are not believable, why do you believe anything else in it is?
Btw, if we are made in the image of God because we have a personality, you could be suggesting our personality must be an image of God since that is the image we are supposedly made in.
However, I'm glad to hear that you don't think we share even similar personality traits with the big guy himself. From what I can tell, he's not the most likeable being