I've just come across this and rather enjoyed it. Tony Benn's position is very much like my dad's and probably my own til recently.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GceRG1XUzv...re=related

Quite a bit of dodging and weaving from Mr. Benn.

I don't like debates like that- where there is no real clear cut rules, everyone just jumps in whenever they want- nothing gets done.

Benn harps on a bit about how science doesn't guide him, and very much avoids the fact that it is not the point of science to guide.

Also, I like the bit that cherry picking bits from the bible in itself proves that we do not need the bible as a moral guidebook.

(January 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm)CoxRox Wrote: I've just come across this and rather enjoyed it. Tony Benn's position is very much like my dad's and probably my own til recently.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GceRG1XUzv...re=related

I respect Tony Benn as a socialist. I have always wondered why he is a christian. Watching this I think it is clear that he Likes the nicey bits of religion, Blocks out the bad bits and clearly will not admit to a belief in " god ".
Disappointing.
But also disappointing is the biased interviewing.
This is an example of the hostile media response to progressive politics ( I include atheism ) and why I have my doubts about the wisdom of advertising atheism on buses.

As Dawkins has said though. sometimes "rocking the boat" can be the right thing to do.

Good vid btw - just because it shows that the more moderate types often basically just cherry pick. And Dawkins always schools the opposition (IMO and in my experience) in debates vs the religious. Basically because they have no decent arguments for God. Or any evidence. None whatsoever it seems to me.

Tony Benn would neither admit to cherry picking OR a belief in God but still represent himself as a Christian when he was clearly just choosing the nice bits. And he kept talking about the culture and the teachings. It seems to me (on the impression I get from 9 minutes of video) that he's just interested in the bits he likes. Not the horrid bits.

What about the evidence? What about the truth? Evidence is the path to truth not merely liking something enough that you commit to it and consider it true. If something's unpleasant that doesn't mean its untrue and if something's very attractive that obviously does NOT mean that it IS true. Truth and desire are two different things. You cannot choose what's true in reality.

Reality just is.

So is it true or not? Tony Benn says he doesn't know and he's agnostic Christian perhaps.

But what reasons does he have to believe that are actually evidence based and not just wishful thinking? I wonder

I'd like to hear what he actually considers as evidence and what isn't just wishful thinking and talking about the goodness and ignoring the badness.
Evf

(January 14, 2009 at 4:57 pm)CoxRox Wrote: I've just come across this and rather enjoyed it. Tony Benn's position is very much like my dad's and probably my own til recently.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=GceRG1XUzv...re=related

I find it difficult to believe I used to respect Benn ... the guy is a frakking moron when it cones to religion.

Kyu

He reminds me of some catholic bishops that were interviewed and basically just went through the religious motions but were well aware that the god of their faith is impossible. One even freely admitted that if he wasn't such a high ranking clergyman he would probably be an agnostic.

(January 15, 2009 at 4:49 am)Kyuuketsuki Wrote: I find it difficult to believe I used to respect Benn ... the guy is a frakking moron when it cones to religion.

Kyu

I was surprised that Benn was even a 'Christian' but I wouldn't go so far as to say 'moron'. He obviously needs more than the material world has to offer and has made some sort of sense in his own mind (or cherry picking if you like) of christianity.

I liked how Dawkins admitted he would be delighted if there did turn out to be a God. I can't understand folk who wouldn't be happy there's more to this material universe than meets the eye. If I were persuaded enough that there is no God, then I'd be the most reluctant atheist.

Like others, I'm really surprised at Tony Benn. It's not that he's a Christian as seeing the way he reacted to the questions I suspect that he isn't. Either that or he is embarrassed. My real surprise was his reaction to science and scientists and his claim that science does not provide us with a moral code and so what good is it?

It's not really sciences place to provide us with a moral code although I think it could do just as good a job as any other discipline. He may as well have been having a go at the Gas Companies for not providing a sense of purpose or meaning in life hock: It's nothing to do with them either.

It must be obvious that we get our sense of morals from our upbringing and as a part of a 'working' society. If we were to follow all the social and behavioural teachings from the bible then we would all be living in a very dangerous and fearful society where many of us would long ago have been put to death.

(January 15, 2009 at 8:30 am)Darwinian Wrote: It's not really sciences place to provide us with a moral code although I think it could do just as good a job as any other discipline. He may as well have been having a go at the Gas Companies for not providing a sense of purpose of meaning in life hock: It's nothing to do with them either.

True it isn't science's place to provide us a moral code BUT science does inform us and allows (often enables) us to make those those same moral decisions/evaluations ... in my opinion it is wrong to say that science has no involvement in the moral process (if there is one).

Kyu