Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

Bashing Mother Teresa: Christopher Hitchens Goes E. O. Wilson One Better

Categories
Culture
Ethics
Evolution
Share
Facebook
Twitter/X
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

E. O. Wilson | Christopher Hitchens

In THE DESIGN OF LIFE, Jonathan Wells and I describe E. O. Wilson’s attack on Mother Teresa as follows (the context of the discussion is that whereas traditional morality must come to terms with the problem of evil, evolutionary morality must come to terms with the problem of good):

For E. O. Wilson, goodness depends on “lying, pretense, and deceit, including self-deceit, because the actor is most convincing who believes that his performance is real.” Accordingly, Wilson attributes Mother Teresa’s acts of goodness to her belief that she will be richly rewarded for them in heaven. In other words, she was simply looking out for number one, acting selfishly in her own self-interest, looking to cash in on the Church’s immortality. As Wilson puts it, “Mother Teresa is an extraordinary person but it should not be forgotten that she is secure in the service of Christ and the knowledge of her Church’s immortality.”

Not to be outdone in bashing Mother Teresa, Christopher Hitchens launched this missile on in a recent Dennis Miller interview (go here):

Mother Theresa spent her whole life saying (that what Calcutta needs) is a huge campaign against family planning. I mean, who comes to that conclusion who isn’t a complete fanatic? She took – and I would directly say stole…millions and millions of dollars and spent all the money not on the poor, but on the building of nearly 200 convents in her own name around the world to glorify herself and to continue to spread the doctrine that, as she put it — when she got her absurd Nobel Peace Prize — that the main threat to world peace is abortion and contraception. The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to.

Comments
Seversky, now apparently Wheeler made that comment on quantum mechanics before quantum teleportation was known,,, so let us delve a little deeper into Quantum Teleportation to see if a little more light can be shed on the foundation of reality: Reflection on the quantum teleportation experiment: That a photon would actually be destroyed upon the teleportation of its "infinite" information to another photon is a direct controlled violation of the first law of thermodynamics. Thus, this is direct empirical validation for the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information (i.e. information cannot be created or destroyed). This conclusion is warranted because information exercises direct dominion of energy, which cannot be created or destroyed by any known material means, yet a photon of energy is destroyed by this transcendent means. Thus, this experiment provides a direct line of logic that transcendent information cannot be created or destroyed. Clearly anything that exercises dominion of the fundamental entity of this physical universe, energy, must of necessity possess the same, as well as greater, qualities. i.e. All information that can exist, for all past, present and future events of energy, already must exist. Another line of evidence, corroborating the primary tenet of the Law of Conservation of Information, is the required mathematical definition for infinite information needed to correctly specify the reality of a photon qubit (Armond Duwell). The fact that quantum teleportation shows an exact "location dominion", of a photon of energy by "a specified truth of infinite information", satisfies a major requirement for the entity needed to explain the missing Dark Matter. The needed transcendent explanation would have to dominate energy in a very similar "specified location" fashion, as is demonstrated by the infinite information of quantum teleportation, to satisfy what is needed to explain the missing dark matter. Colossians 1:17 He is before all things, and in Him all things hold together. Moreover, the fact that simple quantum entanglement shows "coordinated universal control" of entangled photons of energy, by transcendent information, satisfies a major requirement for the entity which must explain the missing Dark Energy. i.e. The transcendent entity, needed to explain Dark Energy, must explain why the entire space of the universe is expanding in such a finely-tuned, coordinated, degree, and would have to employ a mechanism of control very similar to what we witness in the quantum entanglement experiment. Job 9:8 He stretches out the heavens by Himself and walks on the waves of the sea. Thus "infinite transcendent information" provides a coherent picture of universal control, and specificity, that could possibly unify all of physics upon further elucidation. It very well may be possible to elucidate, mathematically, the overall pattern God has chosen to implement infinite information in this universe. This following article powerfully backs up my assertion: Is Unknown Force In Universe Acting On Dark Matter? Excerpt: It is possible that a non-gravitational fifth force is ruling the dark matter with an invisible hand, leaving the same fingerprints on all galaxies, irrespective of their ages, shapes and sizes." ,,Such a force might solve an even bigger mystery, known as 'dark energy', which is ruling the accelerated expansion of the Universe. A more radical solution is a revision of the laws of gravity first developed by Isaac Newton in 1687 and refined by Albert Einstein's theory of General Relativity in 1916. Einstein never fully decided whether his equation should add an omnipresent constant source, now called dark energy. ,,Dr Famaey added, "If we account for our observations with a modified law of gravity, it makes perfect sense to replace the effective action of hypothetical dark matter with a force closely related to the distribution of visible matter." http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022154644.htm "I discovered that nature was constructed in a wonderful way, and our task is to find out its mathematical structure" Albert Einstein Further reflections on the "infinite transcendent information" framework: Mass becomes infinite at the speed of light, thus mass will never go the speed of light. As well, distance in direction of travel will shrink to zero for mass at the speed of light (i.e. the mass would disappear from our sight if it could go the speed of light.). For us to hypothetically travel at the speed of light, in this universe, only gets us to first base as far as quantum teleportation is concerned. That is to say, traveling at the speed of light only gets us to the place where time, as we understand it, comes to complete stop for light, i.e. gets us to the eternal, "past and future folding into now", framework/dimension of time. This "eternal" inference for light is warranted because light is not "frozen within time" yet it is shown that time, as we understand it, does not pass for light. "I've just developed a new theory of eternity." Albert Einstein "The laws of relativity have changed timeless existence from a theological claim to a physical reality. Light, you see, is outside of time, a fact of nature proven in thousands of experiments at hundreds of universities. I don’t pretend to know how tomorrow can exist simultaneously with today and yesterday. But at the speed of light they actually and rigorously do. Time does not pass." – Richard Swenson Light and Quantum Entanglement Proves That God Does Indeed Exist - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yLzpr4EEKn4 Also, hypothetically traveling at the speed of light in this universe would be instantaneous travel for the person going at the speed of light. This is because time does not pass for them, but, and this is a big but; this "timeless" travel is still not instantaneous and transcendent to our temporal framework/dimension of time, i.e. Speed of light travel, to our temporal frame of reference, is still not completely transcendent of our framework since light appears to take time to travel from our perspective. In information teleportation though the "time not passing", eternal, framework is not only achieved in the speed of light framework/dimension, but also in our temporal framework/dimension. That is to say, the instantaneous teleportation/travel of information is instantaneous to both the temporal and speed of light frameworks/dimensions, not just the speed of light framework. Information teleportation/travel is not limited by time, nor space, in any way, shape or form, in any frame of reference, as light is seemingly limited to us. Thus "pure information" is shown to be timeless (eternal) and completely transcendent of all material frameworks/dimensions. Moreover, concluding from all lines of evidence we have now examined; transcendent, eternal, infinite information is indeed real and the framework in which It resides is the primary reality (highest dimension) that can exist, (in so far as our limited perception of a primary reality, highest dimension, can be discerned). Logic also dictates "a decision" must have been made, by the "transcendent, eternal, infinite information" from the primary timeless (eternal) reality It inhabits, in order to purposely create a temporal reality with highly specified, irreducible complex, parameters from a infinite set of possibilities in the proper sequential order. Thus this infinite transcendent information, which is the primary reality of our reality, is shown to be alive. The restriction imposed by our physical limitations of us ever accessing complete infinite information to our temporal framework/dimension does not detract, in any way, from the primacy and dominion of the infinite, eternal, transcendent, information framework/dimension that is now established by the quantum teleportation experiment as the primary reality of our reality. Of note: All of this evidence meshes extremely well with the theistic postulation of God being infinite and perfect in knowledge. "An illusion can never go faster than the speed limit of reality" Akiane - Child Prodigy - Artwork homepage - music video As a side light to this, leading quantum physicist Anton Zeilinger has followed in John Archibald Wheeler's footsteps (1911-2008) by insisting reality, at its most foundational level, is "information". Why the Quantum? It from Bit? A Participatory Universe? Excerpt: In conclusion, it may very well be said that information is the irreducible kernel from which everything else flows. Thence the question why nature appears quantized is simply a consequence of the fact that information itself is quantized by necessity. It might even be fair to observe that the concept that information is fundamental is very old knowledge of humanity, witness for example the beginning of gospel according to John: "In the beginning was the Word." Anton Zeilinger - a leading expert in quantum teleportation: http://www.metanexus.net/magazine/tabid/68/id/5896/Default.aspx Psalm 19:1-2 The heavens declare the glory of God; the skies proclaim the work of his hands. Day after day they pour forth speech; night after night they display knowledge.bornagain77
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
06:18 AM
6
06
18
AM
PDT
Seversky, much talk and no substance does nothing to to bolster your position, save perhaps to further your conviction that your delusion of materialism is correct. Question: Exactly which parameter of physical "material" reality do you cite that would preclude infinite transcendent God from existing?bornagain77
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
06:07 AM
6
06
07
AM
PDT
StephenB,
According to a study done by the Barna Group in 2004, “Atheists and agnostics,” which comprise about 12% of the population were far more likely than other demographic groups to do the following: ?recycle used materials ?visit an adult-only website ?view pornographic media ?get legally drunk ?have sexual intercourse with someone to whom they are not married
Right. And they have a lower divorce rate, too, and are more likely to be well-educated. That's all very nice, but it doesn't even come close to verifying your claim that atheists hate the idea of self-discipline regarding sexual activity. If one does not regard, say, pre-marital sex as wrong -- unlike you I guess -- then self-discipline is not very relevant. Perhaps you should have said that you believe that atheists hate the idea of being subjected to sexual repression by a conservative minority who rely on unfounded claims of moral superiority.Monastyrski
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
06:03 AM
6
06
03
AM
PDT
If Hitchens' goal is to disprove the existence of dogmatic things like Angels and Demons- then he is doing himself a major disservice with quotes like that. He seems to be giving an academy award wining performance of a man possessed by demons. One so good that in fact much of the audience is actually buying it.Frost122585
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
05:56 AM
5
05
56
AM
PDT
"The woman was a fanatic and a fundamentalist and a fraud, and millions of people are much worse off because of her life, and it’s a shame there is no hell for your bitch to go to." Wow, Hitchens crawled out of his bottomless bottle of scotch to insult a nun. What a big strong man he must be! If you people really want to know why atheists are reviled, look no further than Hitchens' comment.Barb
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
05:42 AM
5
05
42
AM
PDT
Seversky, I wont call you "the most rabid atheist I know" because I don’t know you. It is my personal opinion that most atheists are simply people who "wish" not to believe in God and so openly claim not to- as opposed to what they want people to believe about themselves, which is that they have carefully thought out and weighed the evidence only to come to the intelligent "inferred" conclusion that God does not exist. Now on that note allow me to call you out in this regard as well. As opposed to attempting to explain a refutation of Bornagain's arguments from quantum physics and giving your reason for personally discounting these arguments, you have not even attempted to do so, and actually have simply dismissed them for no reason at all calling them mere "speculations." Yet, in a certain sense all statements are speculations as current understandings of physics change all of the time. “What goes up must come down” is a speculation until proven otherwise. In fact the more specific the statement we make about reality the more likely we are to find an exception to it. This is why at the level of particle physics we have the problems associated with the uncertainty principle. We have super specific events and an inability to predict them at increasing difficulty. This is why Einstein said that "to deny generalizations is to deny all knowledge." This is also what lead Bohr to say “There is no quantum world. There is only an abstract quantum physical description. It is wrong to think that the task of physics is to find out how nature is. Physics concerns what we can say about Nature.” As well as what lead Heisenberg to say “Not only is the universe stranger than we think, it is stranger than we can think.” Linguistic explanations are imperfect and all science is provisional making all statements speculative to a point. It is not my doings that the greatest physicists have all become anti-physicists - or Platonists. It is merely a telling testimony to their personal experience and advanced understandings of their expertise which lead them to these positions. In short, instead of all of these great minds being wrong maybe you should consider that it is the paradigm of materialism that is wrong? But what is quite revealing about YOUR personal disposition against theism is that despite your healthy skepticism regarding speculative theoretical statements concerning the nature of reality and so called physics, you still chose to hold absurdly speculative positions-
"It is true to say I sometimes despair of some who claim to speak in His name. As I am sure He would. If He existed."
As you can see you are being speculative about something that you claim does not even exist. Talk about an obvious contradiction and ridiculous philosophical commitment. I personally think people like yourself are less troubled by the science, theology and philosophy required by a theistic commitment as you are about your personal "disdain" for the reality that generally fallows from a theistic world view. Perhaps CS Lewis put it best when he said he was a skeptic when we was younger not because he couldn't imagine how God could exist but because he was "mad at God for not existing." The problem you and all atheists face is known as the ontological proof of God. God exists as a concept in the imagination and mind, and the imagination and mind can make God necessary to exist outside of the mind by defining God as “a necessary all encompassing concept.” So your argument against God’s existence is futile. What you can argue against is speculations regarding specific personal and historical claims about God’s nature. But this you did not even try to do. In fact you committed the greatest speculative statement of all- claiming to know the extensions of something you think cannot exist. Allow me to tell you about the second most speculative theory though- it is called the multi-verse theory. This is a theory that cannot explain it’s own form and as part of the philosophy of the theory it claims you cannot even ask the question of the origin of the natuture of nature. This is a theory which cannot possibly have any physical or empirical evidence of it’s mechanism whatsoever- because how could we see past the origin of our own universe and into the one which supposedly gave rise to this one? We cannot. The best they can do is make up "speculative" an dimaginary matheticial models suggesting it'a plausibility. Kant however should long ago that synthetic reasoning like matehmatics is not to be taken as descriptive of reality without emprical evidence backing it up. So, the materialist's best non theistic physical explanation of the universe’s origin merely uses total speculation to inflate the naturalistic resources to make all events probable- hence making the improbability of life as we know it tautological. This is meaningless as far as it can “explain” the origin of the structure of reality. You need to be more skeptical of speculative assertions and the best way of doing this is examining the personal biases that underlie these positions. Start with your own.Frost122585
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
05:34 AM
5
05
34
AM
PDT
StephenB @ 25
According to a study done by the Barna Group in 2004, “Atheists and agnostics,” which comprise about 12% of the population were far more likely than other demographic groups to do the following: ?recycle used materials
Okay, I confess that, as an agnostic and atheist, I am guilty of indulging my baser instincts by recycling waste materials. As for the rest, it's none of your damn business.
Why would anyone who doesn’t believe in an objective moral standard for sexual activity conform their behavior to that standard or pay the price that its discipline demands.
Exactly. Why should anyone conform to a moral standard whose alleged "objectivity" has yet to be established? This is especially so when there is reason to think that this claim is nothing but an unfounded sectarian attempt to assert the supremacy of Christian morality.
Also, athesits are first in line to support the killing of unborn babies, the business end of unfettered sexual activity. Indeed, I can’t even get atheists on this site to condemn abortion.
Unwanted pregnancies can be the result of many causes other than "unfettered sexual activity". There are also atheists who are opposed to abortion. I am, on the grounds that I believe the right to life should extend from conception to death, although I would allow it if there were compelling medical reasons.
When atheists “work out their own morality,” that is the kind of morality that they work out.
When I have written about our working out our own morality, I have meant it to include all humanity, not just atheists and agnostics. I would argue that there is a firmer rational basis for a collective morality than an objective morality.
In keeping with that point, you will likely never see anyone raise a sign at a political rally which reads, “atheists united for chastity.”
First, there is nothing either right or wrong about sex. It is a normal human appetite and activity. How people choose to indulge it is their business and provided no one is harmed then neither you nor I nor the State has any right to interfere. Quoting again the Victorian actress Mrs Patrick Campbell: "Does it really matter what these affectionate people do-- so long as they don’t do it in the streets and frighten the horses!" If someone chooses of their own free will to remain chaste that is a choice they are entitled to make for themselves not for others. If others prefer to have sex whenever and wherever they can, that is also their choice, provided it is consensual and all parties are prepared to accept the consequences should pregnancy result.
Seversky
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
05:30 AM
5
05
30
AM
PDT
bornagain77 @ 4
Seversky, You know you are about the most rabid atheist I know...
I don't know whether to be flattered or insulted although 'rabid son of a proton-powered rock' has a certain ring to it.
...who will not accept anything no matter what because of your personal hated of all thing pertaining to God...
Not true. It would be illogical to hate something that does not exist. It is true to say I sometimes despair of some who claim to speak in His name. As I am sure He would. If He existed.
Now as a materialist you must explain reality to some type of material basis...
...which is being done rather well, as the technology you and I are using attests.
...but as is clearly shown in quantum mechanics , “material reality does not even “materialize” until a conscious observer is present….thus clearly showing that “material” reality is subservient to “higher dimensional” consciousness in the first place,,,the phenomena of wave collapse to conscious observer is a well accepted fact in science.
If you actually read a little about quantum theory you will find that there are different interpretations of what is meant by the phenomenon of wave function collapse. If you think it shows your pet interpretation clearly, John A Wheeler, whom you cite below, is quoted as saying "If you're not completely confused by quantum mechanics, you do not understand it."
So well accepted that it led Barrow and Tippler to postulate, in order to explain the staggering fine-tuning of the universe, that “human consciousness” evolves to such a point in the future that it/we reach back in time and create the universe ourselves,,,,,
Speculation, even by such luminaries as Barrow and Tipler, is still speculation, not evidence. That sounds like the storyline of a Star Trek episode. In fact, now I think about it, wasn't something similar the basis of the plot in the series finale of Next Generation?
Anthropic Principle – God Created The Universe – Michael Strauss – video [...] I could get into the technical details of why this scenario is completely off the wall, but even without the details, to the fair minded man this evidence is clear and undeniable evidence for the consciousness/soul of man.
There is no question that the origin of the Universe is a fascinating subject or that some scientists have speculated about some sort of mysterious intelligent agency that might lie behind it all. But, as with Wheeler and Tipler, speculation is not evidence, neither are YouTube videos of scientists speculating.
Though I am sure you will be quite unfair with even this evidence and deny that it is relevant,,,but rest assured you are truly fooling no one except yourself.
The videos are evidence that some scientists indulge in this sort of speculation, not that they are right.Seversky
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
04:33 AM
4
04
33
AM
PDT
StephenB, Speaking of sexual immorality and of people going to hell, as Hitchens wishes on Mother Teressa for being "so self-seeking" and for not being "truly loving",,, This video may be of direct interest: Ashen Remains Of Sodom and Gomorrah and The Real Reason God Destroyed Them http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yf8aUk1C-SQbornagain77
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
03:25 AM
3
03
25
AM
PDT
A woman comes to the rabbi and tells him: -Rabbi, I want to have a child. We have been trying for years and nothing has happened. Can you help us? The rabbi replies: -Go in peace, next year you will have a baby son. The same night light fills the study of the rabbi and an angry angel appears. -Shlomo, you have interfered with matters that only belong to God. God will still give the woman the child, but as a punishment, you will never enter Paradise! The next day the rabbi arranges a big feast with the finest dishes he can think of. He is just about to sit down and celebrate, when the same angel appears again. -What are you doing, Shlomo? Don't you understand that you will never enter Paradise? -I jolly well do, -answers the rabbi- that is why I am celebrating. So far I have been doing good to get into Paradise. From now on I can do good just for the sake of good itself.Alex73
November 2, 2009
November
11
Nov
2
02
2009
03:11 AM
3
03
11
AM
PDT
I don't expect anything less from Hitchens. I learned that the evil nature that someone like Hitchens has let overcome him shouldn't be expected to be cordial, factual or truthful. It's not in evil's nature to care about those things that the rest of us, who still have good natures predominantly, value.Clive Hayden
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
11:25 PM
11
11
25
PM
PDT
As a general rule, atheists cannot bear the idea of self-disclipline with respect to sexual activity ---Monastyrski "What is your source for this fascinating piece of insight into the atheist mind? According to a study done by the Barna Group in 2004, "Atheists and agnostics," which comprise about 12% of the population were far more likely than other demographic groups to do the following: ?recycle used materials ?visit an adult-only website ?view pornographic media ?get legally drunk ?have sexual intercourse with someone to whom they are not married Also, I have interviewed many atheists and agnostics, so I have plenty of anecdotal evidence as well. It makes perfect sense. Why would anyone who doesn't believe in an objective moral standard for sexual activity conform their behavior to that standard or pay the price that its discipline demands. Also, athesits are first in line to support the killing of unborn babies, the business end of unfettered sexual activity. Indeed, I can't even get atheists on this site to condemn abortion. When atheists "work out their own morality," that is the kind of morality that they work out. In keeping with that point, you will likely never see anyone raise a sign at a political rally which reads, "atheists united for chastity." ---"I’m so glad that priests have more self-discipline, or the church would be bankrupt by now." Getting a little testy, aren't you.StephenB
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
10:11 PM
10
10
11
PM
PDT
StephenB:
As a general rule, atheists cannot bear the idea of self-disclipline with respect to sexual activity
What is your source for this fascinating piece of insight into the atheist mind? I'm so glad that priests have more self-discipline, or the church would be bankrupt by now.Monastyrski
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
08:59 AM
8
08
59
AM
PDT
Hitchens and Wilson hate Mother Teresa because she had the temerity to suggest that sex has a purpose, that human nature is real, and that that humans ought to manage their sex instincts in accordance with that nature. As a general rule, atheists cannot bear the idea of self-disclipline with respect to sexual activity, and that is the basis for their anger. People who think with their glands do not respond well to appeals for self control or reasoned arguments about directing the passions toward some desired end. Indeed, that is one of the reasons why they have abandoned the idea of "ends" altogether. It's just too much for them to contemplate the fact that sexual morality is the golden mean between the two extremes of puritanism and libertinism. They see puritanism as an extreme and libertinism as the ideal, another conclusion arrived at through glandular thinking. That is also why they make a sacrament out of abortion, which is the inevitable result of unfettered, undiscipined sexual activity. Mother Teresa challenges the legitimacy of their unrestrained glandular expression and they cannot forgive her for it. That is really what is going on here. Everything else is window dressing.StephenB
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
08:25 AM
8
08
25
AM
PDT
----Graham1: "I agree that ID doesnt invoke religion directly." ID science does not invoke religion in any way or in any context. ----"If fact its supporters are scrupulous in their care to avoid the g word." Make up your mind. On the one hand, you say its supporters are "scrupulous to avoid the g word." On the other hand, you say that the g word is all over the place" and use this thread as an example. ---"However, its guilt by association Im afraid. The wedge document, Dover, the innescapable connection I described in 14, the views of Bornagain77, its religion all the way down." The ID "movement" invokes religion all over the place; ID "science" does not depend on religion in any way. That you, and your hero Judge "copycat" Jones cannot make that distinction says more about your capacity for logic than it does about the ID movement. Indeed, the way that you use the generic phrase "ID" without further defining your terms indicates that you are consciously distorting the language to misrepresent the issue, a common tactic among Darwinists. Another Darwinist tactic, by the way, is to disrupt threads with subject matter unrelated to the original theme, as you have done here. I can well understand why administrators feel the need to moderate you from time to time.StephenB
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
07:58 AM
7
07
58
AM
PDT
Getting back to Mother Teresa... E. O. Wilson writes:
Mother Teresa is an extraordinary person but it should not be forgotten that she is secure in the service of Christ and the knowledge of her Church’s immortality.
I have to say that this assertion is just plain wrong. Mother Teresa's 45-year crisis of faith is well documented. See this article in Time magazine, August 23, 2007. It's balanced and well worth reading. An extract:
Although perpetually cheery in public, the Teresa of the letters [her correspondence with her superiors and confessors - VJT] lived in a state of deep and abiding spiritual pain. In more than 40 communications, many of which have never before been published, she bemoans the "dryness," "darkness," "loneliness" and "torture" she is undergoing. She compares the experience to hell and at one point says it has driven her to doubt the existence of heaven and even of God.
And here's Christopher Hitchens:
Mother Theresa spent her whole life saying (that what Calcutta needs) is a huge campaign against family planning.
Funny. That's not what she wrote in her letter to India's Prime Minister, March 26, 1979:
At Calcutta, we now run 102 centers where we teach families how to control birth in respect for mutual love and children. Last year, thousands of Christian, Muslim and Hindu families came to our centers and have thus avoided the births of 70,000 children, but without killing a single one, simply by taking support on the three pillars of love, life and fatherland.
I should add that natural family planning has a proven effectiveness of 98-99 per cent. And if anyone thinks it could never work in Third World countries, they should think again. The British Medical Journal (Sept 18, 1993, v. 307 n.6906 p.723(4)) says otherwise:
Natural family planning, when used by motivated couples, is a safe and cost-effective means of birth control. Natural family planning, which involves teaching women to recognize signs of ovulation and to avoid intercourse on fertile days, is the only method of birth control approved by the Catholic Church. A total of 869 women of diverse ethnic and economic backgrounds participated in a study conducted by the World Health Organization. Regardless of literacy and culture, 93% of the women were able to recognize the changes in their cervical mucus associated with ovulation. Other studies have emphasized the importance of good initial teaching and the motivation of the woman practicing the method. A failure rate of 0.2 pregnancies per 100 women was found in a study of 19,843 women in India.
Oh yeah, and by the way, the current fertility rate for India is... (shock, horror!) 2.72.vjtorley
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
06:52 AM
6
06
52
AM
PDT
You know Graham, I've gone through this evidence with a fine tooth comb for several years and it all points to a Transcendent Designer, A Transcendent Designer who people have called God for thousands of years: Intelligent Design - The Anthropic Hypothesis http://lettherebelight-77.blogspot.com/ I have shown you atheism is indeed a full fledged religion and that evolution is one of its primary pillars of that religion and being as such EVOLUTION CANNOT BE PROMOTED AND PROTECTED BY THE GOVERNMENT since it violates the establishment clause of the constitution,,, You of course failed to mention all this and act as if evolution somehow has legal protection,,, But I have a couple of questions for you,,, Number one is, Why do you feel evolution need laws to protect it? (Although in reality it has no such protection) and Since when does any scientific HYPOTHESIS enjoy such a privilege as protection by law? Maybe if Alchemy could have been protected as such it could have masqueraded as science for a little while longer. It is simply ludicrous that evolution should enjoy such protection from scrutiny and that Children should be brainwashed into this "religion, and yes it is a religious belief! Is not the primary purpose of science to relentlessly pursue a more complete understanding of the truth? Not indoctrinate children with false ideology? Graham can you name me even one piece of evidence for evolution that can withstand scrutiny? I can tell underneath your smugness that you feel you are right in this matter,,,so I challenge you to present THE slam dunk piece of evidence for evolution that gives you such confidence. I certainly can find none. And Graham just what if it is true that we are indeed created by a Infinitely Powerful Creator for a purpose as all evidence indicates? Should you not find this fact absolutely wonderful as the majority of other Americans do? Why should atheists think that this would be such a terrible thing to learn?bornagain77
November 1, 2009
November
11
Nov
1
01
2009
02:55 AM
2
02
55
AM
PDT
"Their sullen rantings and slander are not to be taken seriously" In case of misinterprtation I mean those of Wilson and Hitchens of course!deric davidson
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
11:18 PM
11
11
18
PM
PDT
To StephenB: I agree that ID doesnt invoke religion directly. If fact its supporters are scrupulous in their care to avoid the g word. However, its guilt by association Im afraid. The wedge document, Dover, the innescapable connection I described in 14, the views of Bornagain77, its religion all the way down.Graham1
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
10:04 PM
10
10
04
PM
PDT
What Wilson and Hitchens say about Mother Teresa is of course simply their own biased opinion. Just speculative comment with no factual basis or proof. This is simply what they think personally and not necessarily what is true. Acts of absolute goodness for them don't exist, particularly amongst Christians, because the underlying motivation is always a self-centerd selfish one. Apparently for them genuine selfless compassion, sympathy and empathy cannot exist side by side with a desire for personal salvation. Mother Teresa and others like her (through history) are fakes they say. Their sullen rantings and slander are not to be taken seriously The "moralizing" of atheists is fascinating since it is often associated with the denigration of people who have a different perspective to them of what is important in this life.deric davidson
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
09:53 PM
9
09
53
PM
PDT
---Graham1: "1. The world is so complex it must be made by God." ID science does not say that, nor can it. Natural theology, the philosophical counterpart of ID can indeed point to God, as Aquinas pointed out 800 years ago. On the other hand, mere complexity as a scientific observation points neither to God nor to a designer. You knew that, right? Of course you didn't. For the third time, I am asking you to draw the link between religion and ID methodology.StephenB
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
09:45 PM
9
09
45
PM
PDT
----Graham1: "StephenB at #7 tries to deny this, [ID and religion are never far apart]. I will ask you again: Show me how ID methodology depends on religion in any way. Explain to us how one can extract religion from "irreducible complexity" or "specified complexity." [Hint: Judge Jones, or the ACLU atheists who lead him around by the nose, cannot help you since they know nothing at all about the subject.] You are on your own.StephenB
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
09:30 PM
9
09
30
PM
PDT
To bornagain77: explain how the Christian faith leaks into ID methodology Lets see, 1. The world is so complex it must be made by God. This was clearly stated by you in #6: "the reason God “keeps popping up” is because ... there simply is no other reasonable explanation" This has not been disputed by anyone here. 2. The central idea of Intelligent Design is that the world is so complex that it must have been designed. 3. Now, can I join up the last 2 dots ? I agree that, (as Ms O'Leary put it) we can all have our virtual tea break, and Im sure that all scientists discuss all sorts of things in their tea break, but why do religion & ID always go together ?Graham1
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
09:03 PM
9
09
03
PM
PDT
Graham IT is NOW perfectly legal to teach evidence against evolution, contrary to what your hero Judge Jones said in his case, but just in case you missed the last bit of the Law Review Article I cited here it is:
Educators that choose to improve science education by teaching both the scientific evidence supporting modern Darwinian theory, as well as the scientific evidence that challenges this view, can rest assured that they are on firm legal ground
bornagain77
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
07:43 PM
7
07
43
PM
PDT
New Law Review Article Surveys Case Law on Teaching Evolution http://www.evolutionnews.org/2009/07/new_law_review_article_surveys.htmlbornagain77
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
07:04 PM
7
07
04
PM
PDT
Well Graham, contrary to what you believe, and the deceptive denials by atheists, Atheism is indeed considered to be a full fledged religion! This is according to 7th Circuit Court Of Appeals as well as atheist Michael Ruse who is a leading philosopher of science in the nation. Thus for America to not allow the solid evidence, which is contrary to evolution, to be taught, is actually a violation of the separation clause,, I would love for a balanced treatment of The Cambrian explosion,,(I believe it is barely, or not even, mentioned now) As well Graham wherever you find dogmatic evolution taught a dogmatic atheist is sure to follow! EXPELLED - Evolution and The Constitutional Right To Teach Evidence Against Evolution http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=758X86xRrOYbornagain77
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
07:01 PM
7
07
01
PM
PDT
Graham1 at 9, do you have a reading problem or what? I said we had a right to talk about theology if we liked, not that it decided policy, let alone science. In fact, I explicitly denied that. = "Talking about theology does NOT mean that public policy here is decided by someone ranting that he is the Voice of God or the Final Prophet or He Who Must Be Obeyed. It never has been that way here and I sure hope it never will be. It means that people can feel free to discuss theological issues when they feel like it. Call it our virtual lunch hour or tea break, if you want. But we are entitled to talk about that stuff. If that’s not true where you live, either change your society or your citizenship." If, the other hand, if you don't like a free society, fine. Live somewhere else. O'Leary
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
06:58 PM
6
06
58
PM
PDT
To bornagain77 #6 I appreciate the candour of your reply, but Im wondering if you have been just a tad too candid. You seem to have just given an eloquent description of exactly what ID critics have always assumed to be the case (and Judge Jones agrees), ID and religion are never far apart. StephenB at #7 tries to deny this, then O'leary at #8 just confirms it again. Wherever you find ID, religion is sure to follow.Graham1
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
06:42 PM
6
06
42
PM
PDT
Graham1, for what it is worth: The vast majority of North Americans believe in the existence of God, for rational reasons. And remember, it was North Americans who put a man on the moon and built the Space Shuttle and the Canadarm and the CN Tower. So we can all shut up already about whether people with our heritage are allowed to talk about theology. Talking about theology does NOT mean that public policy here is decided by someone ranting that he is the Voice of God or the Final Prophet or He Who Must Be Obeyed. It never has been that way here and I sure hope it never will be. It means that people can feel free to discuss theological issues when they feel like it. Call it our virtual lunch hour or tea break, if you want. But we are entitled to talk about that stuff. If that's not true where you live, either change your society or your citizenship. PS: North America (USA and Canada) accepts immigrants. All I ever say is, if you land immigrant in Canada (my home and native land), please leave all local grievances behind. We can't do anything about it, but we can deal with people who are raising cain here. O'Leary
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
06:24 PM
6
06
24
PM
PDT
---Graham1: "Im repeatedly censored on this blog for mentioning it, but why does God keep popping up ? ID is deperately trying to distance itself from religion (Dover) yet God just keeps popping up, again and again. Is this a ’scientific’ blog, or a theological one ?" It is a blog that invites discussion on all aspects of the subject, much to the chagrin of our adversaries. For your information, ID science has nothing to do with religion. If you think otherwise, explain how the Christian faith leaks into ID methodology, or explain how such a thing could even be possible. You can't because it doesn't. On the other hand, many ID advocates occasionally argue on behalf of rational theistic principles in order to counter the irrational principles inherent in the religion of Darwinism, and make no mistake, Darwinism is a religion. Following the lead of their favorite Darwinist judge, Darwinists knowingly and dishonestly characterize the design inference as a religious presupposition in an attempt to muddy the debate waters and discredit ID. Only a religious commitment that tolerates no dissent could prompt that kind of behavior. Here is the way the game is played: Knowing that ID has already been smeared by Judge Jones, who dishonestly linked ID to creationism, radical Darwinists labor strenously to keep the lie alive each time one of us alludes to religion in any way. I, for one, do not allow Darwinists to silence me under the threat that they will continue to perpetuate their lie, since I know that they will do so in any case. Their religion requires it.StephenB
October 31, 2009
October
10
Oct
31
31
2009
05:21 PM
5
05
21
PM
PDT
1 2 3

Leave a Reply