On November 21, 2014 I received a letter from Nobel Laureate Harry Kroto and it said:
…Please click on this URL http://vimeo.com/26991975
and you will hear what far smarter people than I have to say on this matter. I agree with them.
Harry Kroto
I have attempted to respond to all of Dr. Kroto’s friends arguments and I have posted my responses one per week for over a year now. Here are some of my earlier posts:
Arif Ahmed, Haroon Ahmed, Jim Al-Khalili, Sir David Attenborough, Mark Balaguer, Horace Barlow, Michael Bate, Sir Patrick Bateson, Simon Blackburn, Colin Blakemore, Ned Block, Pascal Boyer, Patricia Churchland, Aaron Ciechanover, Noam Chomsky, Brian Cox, Partha Dasgupta, Alan Dershowitz, Frank Drake, Hubert Dreyfus, John Dunn, Bart Ehrman, Mark Elvin, Richard Ernst, Stephan Feuchtwang, Robert Foley, David Friend, Riccardo Giacconi, Ivar Giaever , Roy Glauber, Rebecca Goldstein, David J. Gross, Brian Greene, Susan Greenfield, Stephen F Gudeman, Alan Guth, Jonathan Haidt, Theodor W. Hänsch, Brian Harrison, Stephen Hawking, Hermann Hauser, Robert Hinde, Roald Hoffmann, Bruce Hood, Gerard ‘t Hooft, Caroline Humphrey, Nicholas Humphrey, Herbert Huppert, Gareth Stedman Jones, Steve Jones, Shelly Kagan, Michio Kaku, Stuart Kauffman, Masatoshi Koshiba, Lawrence Krauss, Harry Kroto, George Lakoff, Rodolfo Llinas, Elizabeth Loftus, Alan Macfarlane, Dan McKenzie, Mahzarin Banaji, Peter Millican, Marvin Minsky, Leonard Mlodinow, P.Z.Myers, Yujin Nagasawa, Alva Noe, Douglas Osheroff, David Parkin, Jonathan Parry, Roger Penrose, Saul Perlmutter, Herman Philipse, Carolyn Porco, Robert M. Price, VS Ramachandran, Lisa Randall, Lord Martin Rees, Colin Renfrew, Alison Richard, C.J. van Rijsbergen, Oliver Sacks, John Searle, Marcus du Sautoy, Simon Schaffer, J. L. Schellenberg, Lee Silver, Peter Singer, Walter Sinnott-Armstrong, Ronald de Sousa, Victor Stenger, John Sulston, Barry Supple, Leonard Susskind, Raymond Tallis, Max Tegmark, Neil deGrasse Tyson, Martinus J. G. Veltman, Craig Venter, .Alexander Vilenkin, Sir John Walker, James D. Watson, Frank Wilczek, Steven Weinberg, and Lewis Wolpert,
BBC The Atheism Tapes – Colin McGinn – 1 of 6
Published on Apr 22, 2012
https://www.facebook.com/UkFreeThinki…
__________________________________________
At the 9:30 mark Colin McGinn says:
There was disappointment. I would like for religion to be true. I would like for it to be true because I would like there to be immortality. I would like there to be rewards for those who have been virtuous, and punishments for those who have not been virtuous, especially those punishments to be good. There is no justice in this world and it would be good if there was some cosmic force that distributed justice in the proper way that it should be. It still is for me a constant source of irritation and pain that wicked people prosper and virtuous people don’t.
Colin McGinn
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Colin McGinn
Born
10 March 1950
West Hartlepool, County Durham, England
Residence
Miami, Florida
Education
BA (Hons), psychology, University of Manchester (1971)
MA, psychology, University of Manchester (1972)
BPhil, philosophy, University of Oxford (1974)
Known for
New mysterianism
Colin McGinn (born 10 March 1950) is a British philosopher. He has held teaching posts and professorships at University College London, the University of Oxford, Rutgers University and the University of Miami.[1]
McGinn is best known for his work in the philosophy of mind, and in particular for what is known as new mysterianism, the idea that the human mind is not equipped to solve the problem of consciousness. He is the author of over 20 books on this and other areas of philosophy, including The Character of Mind (1982), The Problem of Consciousness (1991), Consciousness and Its Objects (2004), and The Meaning of Disgust (2011).[1]
Colin McGinn Why is There Anything At All
Colin McGinn on Consciousness
Uploaded on Dec 6, 2009
This video begins with McGinn briefly listing the range of philosophical approaches that have been taken to the “hard problem of consciousness”. As Michael Dooley points out, there are good reasons for a monist approach to “mind” and “consciousness” — both can be altered by physical agents: drugs, blows to the head, etc. As David Chalmers points out, we each are certain that we are individually conscious: a certainty that Descartes employed in “je pense, donc je suis”, or “cogito ergo sum”.
Contents
1 Early life and education
2 Teaching career
2.1 Posts
2.2 Resignation
3 Writing
3.1 Philosophy of mind
3.2 Animal rights
3.3 Novels and articles
4 Radio and television
5 Works
6 References
7 Further reading
Early life and education
McGinn was born in West Hartlepool, a town in County Durham, England. Several of his relatives, including both grandfathers, were miners. His father, Joseph, left school to become a miner, but put himself through night school and became a building manager instead. McGinn was the eldest of three children, all sons. When he was three, the family moved to Gillingham, Kent, and eight years later to Blackpool, Lancashire. Having failed his 11-plus, he attended a technical school in Kent, then a secondary modern in Blackpool, but did well enough in his O-levels to be transferred to the local grammar school for his A-levels.[2]
In 1968 he began a degree in psychology at the University of Manchester, obtaining a first-class honours degree in 1971 and an MA in 1972, also in psychology.[1] He was admitted in 1972 to Jesus College, Oxford, at first to study for a Bachelor of Letters postgraduate degree, but he switched to the Bachelor of Philosophy (BPhil) postgraduate programme on the recommendation of his advisor, Michael R. Ayers. In 1973 he was awarded the university’s prestigious John Locke Prize in Mental Philosophy; one of the examiners was A.J. Ayer.[3] He received his BPhil in 1974, writing a thesis under the supervision of Michael Ayers and P. F. Strawson on the semantics of Donald Davidson.[4]
Colin McGinn Peter Singer – Morality Without God – Euthyphro Dilemma
Published on May 22, 2013
Many theists and nontheists alike are familiar with the “Euthyphro Dilemma,” so-called because a version of it was first formulated in Plato’s Dialogue Euthyphro. In this dialogue, Socrates poses the question: Is something good because it is pleasing to the gods, or is it pleasing to the gods because it is good? While Socrates (and Plato, of course) lived in a polytheistic culture, the question can easily be updated for a predominantly monotheistic culture: Is something good because it is pleasing to God, or is something pleasing to God because it is good?
How one answers this question has profound implications. On the first horn of the dilemma, we end up with Divine Command Theory, the notion that something is good because God commands it. This implies that the good is simply what God says it is. So if today God commands charity, mercy, and forgiveness, those things are good. But if tomorrow God commands rape, murder, and genocide, such atrocities would then become good. If God does not change his mind, we are just lucky.
If we take the other option, then what is good is good inherently, regardless of what God or anyone else happens to think. This would mean that there are standards of conduct according to which even God can be judged.
Some theists have tried to escape from this trap by claiming that God’s own nature is the standard of goodness. Thus God would never command atrocities because it would not conform to his nature, which can properly be described as good.
But this is an obvious confusion. We can simply reformulate the question: Is something good because it is in conformance with God’s nature, or do we say God’s nature is good based on some other standard? If the good simply refers to God’s nature, then again we can say that whatever is in God’s nature happens to be good. Were it in his nature to command atrocities, then the commission of atrocities would be good. If his nature does not condone such things, we are, again, simply lucky.
______________________________________________
Teaching career
Posts
McGinn taught at University College London for 11 years, first as a lecturer in philosophy (1974–1984), then as reader (1984–1985). In 1985 he succeeded Gareth Evans as Wilde Reader in Mental Philosophy at the University of Oxford, a position he held until 1990. He held visiting professorships at the University of California, Los Angeles (1979), University of Bielefeld (1982), University of Southern California (1983), Rutgers University (1984), University of Helsinki (1986), City University of New York (1988) and Princeton University (1992). In 1990 he joined the philosophy department at Rutgers as a full professor, working alongside Jerry Fodor.[1] He stayed at Rutgers until 2005, joining the University of Miami in 2006 as Professor of Philosophy and Cooper Fellow.[1]
In the first video below in the 21st clip in this series are his words and my response is below them.
50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 1)
Another 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 2
A Further 50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God (Part 3)
Below is a letter I wrote to Dr. McGinn and I respond to his quote:
February 12, 2015
Dr. Colin McGinn
Dear Dr. McGinn,
As you can tell from reading this letter I am an evangelical Christian and I have made it a hobby of mine to correspond with scientists or academics like yourself over the last 25 years. Some of those who corresponded back with me have been Ernest Mayr (1904-2005),, George Wald (1906-1997), Carl Sagan (1934-1996), Robert Shapiro (1935-2011), Nicolaas Bloembergen (1920-), Brian Charlesworth (1945-), Francisco J. Ayala (1934-) Elliott Sober (1948-), Kevin Padian (1951-), Matt Cartmill (1943-) , Milton Fingerman (1928-), John J. Shea (1969-), , Michael A. Crawford (1938-), Paul Kurtz (1925-2012), Sol Gordon (1923-2008), Albert Ellis (1913-2007), Barbara Marie Tabler (1915-1996), Renate Vambery (1916-2005), Archie J. Bahm (1907-1996), Aron S “Gil” Martin ( 1910-1997), Matthew I. Spetter (1921-2012), H. J. Eysenck (1916-1997), Robert L. Erdmann (1929-2006), Mary Morain (1911-1999), Lloyd Morain (1917-2010), Warren Allen Smith (1921-), Bette Chambers (1930-), Gordon Stein (1941-1996) , Milton Friedman (1912-2006), John Hospers (1918-2011), Michael Martin (1932-).Harry Kroto (1939-), Marty E. Martin (1928-), Richard Rubenstein (1924-), James Terry McCollum (1936-), Edward O. WIlson (1929-), Lewis Wolpert (1929), Gerald Holton (1922-), Martin Rees (1942-), Alan Macfarlane (1941-), Roald Hoffmann (1937-), Herbert Kroemer (1928-), Thomas H. Jukes (1906-1999), Glenn Branch, Geoff Harcourt (1931-) and Ray T. Cragun (1976-). I would consider it an honor to add you to this very distinguished list.
I just finished reading the online addition of the book Darwin, Francis ed. 1892. Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters [abridged edition]. London: John Murray. There are several points that Charles Darwin makes in this book that were very wise, honest, logical, shocking and some that were not so wise. The Christian Philosopher Francis Schaeffer once said of Darwin’s writings, “Darwin in his autobiography and in his letters showed that all through his life he never really came to a quietness concerning the possibility that chance really explained the situation of the biological world. You will find there is much material on this [from Darwin] extended over many many years that constantly he was wrestling with this problem.”
Recently I ran across the following quote from you::
Suppose you take, as a moral principle, it’s wrong to steal. People say, “Why is that wrong? Why is it wrong to steal?” Answer – because God says it’s wrong to steal. God commanded that you should not steal. The point that Socrates makes in that dialogue is to say – how can God give this moral rule a foundation? Either the moral rule is, itself, intrinsically a sound moral rule or it can’t be given soundness and legitimacy from an external command.
Suppose for example we had the rule, “It’s right to murder.” Somebody said, “That’s not right! Murder is wrong!” And somebody replied, “But God SAYS it’s right to murder.” That doesn’t convince you that it’s right to murder. If God says that something is right which isn’t right, God’s wrong.
I got this quote from the You Tube series “Renowned Academics talk about God,” and I noticed that this is not the first time that you have chosen to speak on morality in a large TV platform like this. Wikipedia noted, “In 2004, Jonathan Miller wrote and presented a TV series on atheism entitled Atheism: A Rough History of Disbelief (more commonly referred to as Jonathan Miller’s Brief History of Disbelief) for BBC Four. I watched that complete series and did not see any reference to Antony Flew which I thought was strange. But more striking was this statement by you:
There was disappointment. I would like for religion to be true. I would like for it to be true because I would like there to be immortality. I would like there to be rewards for those who have been virtuous, and punishments for those who have not been virtuous, especially those punishments to be good. There is no justice in this world and it would be good if there was some cosmic force that distributed justice in the proper way that it should be. It still is for me a constant source of irritation and pain that wicked people prosper and virtuous people don’t.
Francis Schaffer in his book THE GOD WHO IS THERE addresses these same issues:
“[in Christianity] there is a sufficient basis for morals. Nobody has ever discovered a way of having real “morals” without a moral absolute. If there is no moral absolute, we are left with hedonism (doing what I like) or some form of the social contract theory (what is best for society as a a hole is right). However, neither of these alternative corresponds to the moral motions that men have. Talk to people long enough and deeply enough, and you will find that they consider some things are really right and something are really wrong. Without absolutes, morals as morals cease to exist, and humanistic mean starting from himself is unable to find the absolute he needs. But because the God of the Bible is there, real morals exist. Within this framework I can say one action is right and another wrong, without talking nonsense.” 117
Instead of addressing the issue of which morality is right today, I just what to ask you why you think materialist anthropologists are not able to explain why humans always have a sense of moral motions? No tribe of people have ever been found without moral motions!!!!!
When I read the book Charles Darwin: his life told in an autobiographical chapter, and in a selected series of his published letters, I also read a commentary on it by Francis Schaeffer and I wanted to both quote some of Charles Darwin’s own words to you and then include the comments of Francis Schaeffer on those words. I have also enclosed a CD with two messages from Adrian Rogers and Bill Elliff concerning Darwinism. THESE COMMENTS BY SCHAEFFER ON THE MORAL MOTIONS PROMPTED ME TO WRITE YOU TODAY.
The passages which here follow are extracts, somewhat abbreviated, from a part of the Autobiography, written in 1876, in which my father gives the history of his religious views:—
CHARLES DARWIN’S WORDS:
But now the grandest scenes would not cause any such convictions and feelings to rise in my mind. It may be truly said that I am like a man who has become colour-blind and the universal belief by men of the existence of redness makes my present loss of perception of not the least value as evidence. This argument would be a valid one if all men of all races had the same inward conviction of the existence of one God; but we know that this is very far from being the case. Therefore I cannot see that such inward convictions and feelings are of any weight as evidence of what really exists. The state of mind which grand scenes formerly excited in me, and which was intimately connected with a belief in God, did not essentially differ from that which is often called the sense of sublimity; and however difficult it may be to explain the genesis of this sense, it can hardly be advanced as an argument for the existence of God, any more than the powerful though vague and similar feelings excited by music.
Francis Schaeffer observed:
You notice that Darwin had already said he had lost his sense of music [appreciation]. However, he brings forth what I think is a false argument. I usually use it in the area of morality. I mention that materialistic anthropologists point out that different people have different moral [systems] and this is perfectly true, but what the materialist anthropologist can never point out is why man has a sense of moral motion and that is the problem here. Therefore, it is perfectly true that men have different concepts of God and different concepts of moral motion, but Darwin himself is not satisfied in his own position and WHERE DO THEY [MORAL MOTIONS] COME FROM AT ALL? So you are wrestling with the same dilemma here in this reference as you do in the area of all things human. For these men it is not the distinction that raises the problem, but it is the overwhelming factor of the existence of the humanness of man, the mannishness of man. The simple fact is he saw that you are shut up to either God or chance, and he said basically “I don’t see how it could be chance” and at the same time he looks at a mountain or listens to a piece of music it is a testimony that really chance isn’t sufficient enough. So gradually with the sensitivity of his own inborn self conscience he kills it. He deliberately kills the beauty so it doesn’t argue with his theory. Maybe I am being false to Darwin here. Who can say about Darwin’s subconscious thoughts? It seems to me though this is exactly the case. What you find is a man who can’t stand the argument of the external beauty and the mannishness of man so he just gives it up in this particular place.
I wanted to compliment you for your statement on Jonathan Miller’s series on Atheism. It was very honest and frank. Let me repeat it here again.
There was disappointment. I would like for religion to be true. I would like for it to be true because I would like there to be immortality. I would like there to be rewards for those who have been virtuous, and punishments for those who have not been virtuous, especially those punishments to be good. There is no justice in this world and it would be good if there was some cosmic force that distributed justice in the proper way that it should be. It still is for me a constant source of irritation and pain that wicked people prosper and virtuous people don’t.
Paul also shared your view that if there is no God then it would be very sad indeed. Here are his words:
I Corinthians 15 asserts:
12 But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.
I sent you a CD that starts off with the song DUST IN THE WIND by Kerry Livgren of the group KANSAS which was a hit song in 1978 when it rose to #6 on the charts because so many people connected with the message of the song. It included these words, “All we do, crumbles to the ground though we refuse to see, Dust in the Wind, All we are is dust in the wind, Don’t hang on, Nothing lasts forever but the Earth and Sky, It slips away, And all your money won’t another minute buy.”
Kerry Livgren himself said that he wrote the song because he saw where man was without a personal God in the picture. Solomon pointed out in the Book of Ecclesiastes that those who believe that God doesn’t exist must accept three things. FIRST, death is the end and SECOND, chance and time are the only guiding forces in this life. FINALLY, power reigns in this life and the scales are never balanced. The Christian can face death and also confront the world knowing that it is not determined by chance and time alone and finally there is a judge who will balance the scales.
Both Kerry Livgren and the bass player Dave Hope of Kansas became Christians eventually. Kerry Livgren first tried Eastern Religions and Dave Hope had to come out of a heavy drug addiction. I was shocked and elated to see their personal testimony on The 700 Club in 1981 and that same interview can be seen on You Tube today. Livgren lives in Topeka, Kansas today where he teaches “Diggers,” a Sunday school class at Topeka Bible Church. DAVE HOPE is the head of Worship, Evangelism and Outreach at Immanuel Anglican Church in Destin, Florida.
The answer to find meaning in life is found in putting your faith and trust in Jesus Christ. The Bible is true from cover to cover and can be trusted.
Thank you again for your time and I know how busy you are.
Everette Hatcher, everettehatcher@gmail.com, http://www.thedailyhatch.org, cell ph 501-920-5733, Box 23416, LittleRock, AR 72221, United States
Is the Bible historically accurate? Here are some of the posts I have done in the past on the subject: 1. <a href="h