Evil and Suffering: AS Revision

Image courtesy of Pixabay

Some revision videos linked to the AS topic of Evil and Suffering from the excellent MrMcMillanREvis:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qilO5AJjkvw&sns=em

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1ysPBjXXk4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWcgHmXV09g

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEB72UE7P2A

Also available as iTunes podcasts <here>

Stephen Fry calls God an 'evil, capricious, monstrous maniac'

Image courtesy of The Telegraph 

Outspoken atheist Stephen Fry created headlines this week as he described God as 'evil, capricious, monstrous maniac' on an Irish TV interview:

This has echoes of the 18th century atheist David Hume who claimed evil and suffering as "the rock of atheism".

However the response from Christians has already begun....

Giles Fraser wrote a response to Fry. He concludes:

Simply put: there is no such thing as the God he imagines. It is the flying teapot orbiting a distant planet about which nothing can be said. Such a God doesn’t exist. Nilch. Nada. It’s a nonsense. Indeed, as no less an authority than Thomas Aquinas rightly insists, existence itself is a questionable predicate to use of God. For God is the story of human dreams and fears. God is the shape we try to make of our lives. God is the name of the respect we owe the planet. God is the poetry of our lives. Of course this is real. Frighteningly real. Real enough to live and die for even. But this is not the same as saying that God is a command and control astronaut responsible for some wicked hunger game experiment on planet earth. Such a being does not exist. And for the precisely the reasons Fry expounds, thank God for that. [Read more <here>]

Russell Brand has uploaded this:

Fr Ed Tomlinson has written an extensive post on his blog:

For it is obvious from your emotional response that you actually hold life to be precious. Your rage at the worm suggests you see something infinitely precious in humanity that makes it worthy of dignity, protection and care. Good for you! Christians agree and include you in that number. But Stephen….

…why rail against God if you don’t believe in him? I cannot imagine getting cross with a creature I believed mythical, say a unicorn or pixie! No, the emotion you display is only rationally, surely, if delivered to a living agent you do suspect might just be there.

Perhaps then it is not that you disbelieve in God, so much as feel anger towards him and what you think he has revealed? If so I urge you to look again and see not only our grot but also our glory. For there must clearly be something of value in a Catholic church that has lasted two thousand years, which comprises 1.4 billion members and which has outlived every regime that ever sought to destroy it. [Read more <here>]

Another response from Justin Brierley:

Do you think Stephen Fry has put forward a rational and balanced argument? Do you agree with Russell Brand that Stephen Fry has 'missed something'? How about Fr Ed Tomlinson's response, is Fry closer to theism than he realises? Did David Hume get it right several hundred years ago or is there a theodicy that allows suffering AND God to exist? 

Judge says "Switch It Off!"

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

BBC reports, "A boy with irreversible brain damage should be taken off a life-support machine despite the objections of his parents, a High Court judge has ruled."

This decision is despite his mother saying, "He is still alive... Miracles do happen.", and his father saying, "We know he is reacting to certain things. He still has life. We don't have the right, as parents, as individuals, to take this privilege from him."

They are devout Christians and don't feel they have the right to make this decision, however medical experts do not see a possibility of recovery. The judge says it is in the boys "best interests". 

A lawyer for the hospital said, "Her [the mother] deep religious feelings and beliefs lead her to believe... there may be a miracle. Unfortunately, looking at the medical evidence, the miracle the parents hope and pray for is unlikely to happen."

Do you think the right decision has been made? Do you think the parents have allowed their religious belief to overtake medical advice? Do you think they will look back and agree it was the right decision? Why do you think the hospital took this to court?

Read more <here>

2014 RPE Essay Competition - Win an iPad..

Image courtesy of RPE 

It's back! The 2014 :

RELIGION, PHILOSOPHY AND ETHICS ESSAY COMPETITION 

First prize: a new iPad

Four Runners-up receive a £20 Amazon voucher

The winning essay will be published in RE Today magazine

 Following the success of last year, the Religion, Philosophy and Ethics (RPE) course  is pleased to announce the return of the RPE Essay Competition

The competition is open to all those currently studying for any AS or A2-level examinations (or equivalent) in the UK. The first prize is a new iPad, and there will be four runners-up prizes of £20 Amazon vouchers.

Entries must be no longer than 1500 words including footnotes but excluding references and can take any form e.g. essay, dialogue, etc. All sources must be referenced.

The deadline for the 1500 word essay is 5pm on 24^st October 2014 and will be judged by RPE lecturers. The winner will be announced on the RPE Blog on 1^st December 2014

To enter please choose one of the titles below and email your entry to

dwebster@glos.ac.uk (please note you may only submit one entry to the competition).

Entries must be written in as a Microsoft Word document. Entries will normally be acknowledged within 5 days. In your email, please put your name, the Sixth Form / FE college you attend, and the title you have chosen to answer. The subject of your email should be 'essay competition'.

Choose one of the following titles: 

Q1: What is the proper role of religion in a modern, secular society?

Q2: If you had a time machine, would it be wrong to travel back and kill Hitler?

Q3: Does science give us an accurate picture of 'how the world is'?

Remember:

·       1500 words maximum

·       Your essay must include the title/your name/contact email at the top of the page

·       The essay must be an attachment to the email as a Microsoft Word document

Any essay that does not satisfy these three conditions will not be considered by the judging panel.

The panel decision is final, and no correspondence will be entered into.

Reblogged from: http://r-p-e.blogspot.co.uk/2014/04/2014-rpe-essay-competition-win-ipad.html

9/11 Remembered

Image courtesy of Wikipedia

The 11th September 2014 marks 13 years since the attacks on the Twin Towers in New York and the Pentagon in Washington. 

I often refer to 9/11 when looking at the problem of evil in philosophy. It seemed irreconcilable to many that an all-knowing and all-loving God could allow such an action, especially in the name of religion. I have blogged about this before, see <here>.

Ross Mackechnie, a 9/11 survivor, claimed: “In less than two hours Aquinas’ proofs of God were blasted, seared, chocked with arid smoke and snuffed out forever along with more than 3000 lives now reduced to powder in the rubble of Ground Zero.”

However the important thing now is that many young people are unaware of the full devastation of 9-11. This excellent video from TrueTube explains the terrible events of the day:


It also includes an assembly plan for teachers or students: <here>

A prayer at Ground Zero:

Or <here>

SHoM A-Level RS Blog

"The Examined Life" is the working title of the Sacred Heart of Mary Girls' School A-Level RS Blog. Students are taking it in turn to blog about one aspect of their AS/A2 course, either linked to philosophy or ethics.

Our first post has been made, so please visit here to read, share and comment: http://shomrs.blogspot.co.uk/2013/09/as-we-begin-new-school-year-our-focus.html

We hope you will visit frequently to find out what we have been learning about and read the reflections that students and staff have made.

What would you like to see on the blog? What topics would you enjoy reading about? Are you inspired to start a blog?

Organ Donors: Opt-in or Out-out?

On a historic day, the Welsh assembly have voted through a law that will mean people have to opt-out of the organ donation register. Effectively in Wales, people will automatically be considered as a donor when they die, unless they have expressly 'opted-out' of the register.

It was discussed on this blog last year about how the ethical dilemma presented by the fact it was easy to sign people up to the donor register, and that you could save lives by signing up your friends and family with them not knowing.... read more <here>.

It is the first part of the UK to adopt such a law, which is already in place in a number of other countries and could be in force by 2015.

The aim of the aim of the Bill is to increase the number of organs available from Wales, potentially by 25%. It is important to remember that not every organ is suitable for donation, nor is it necessarily easy to find a match. It is hoped that the number of donors rise from around 65 donors to 80 and that from these additional donors, there would be a further 26 kidneys, 10 livers, two hearts and four lungs available for transplant - all potentially saving a life.

It is not as easy as some people think to make a correlation between signing up, then donating organs and then saving a life. According to the NHS Blood and Transplant service, it is fewer than 5,000 people that die every year in the UK in circumstances that would allow them to donate successfully.

However, it is estimated there are around 250 people in the UK on a waiting list for a transplant at any one time, with 33 people in Wales died in 2012/13 while waiting. Surely if even a few of these could be saved, the law would be worth while?

The counter-argument revolves around the fact that some people do not like the idea that the State takes charge of the dead body, using it as they see fit. Also people want to know what clauses there will be if a family are against donation from a loved one, will it forcibly take place?

It certainly creates a few ethical questions will no doubt be asked over the next few years in Wales.

Do you agree an opt-out system is better? Despite it only saving a few more lives, is it worth it? How do you think the people of Wales will feel? Do you think it is right that the State can interfere like this? What clauses would you like to see in the new law?

Read more: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-politics-23143236
Read more with further detail on the 'For' and 'Against': http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/debate/should-we-move-to-an-optout-system-of-organ-donation-8375859.html

3 Minute Philosophy

A philosopher who is not taking part in discussions is like a boxer who never goes into the ring. ~ Wittgenstein

Philosophy can sometimes get a little heavy. It is one of the oldest academic subjects, and it's tough! It's also incredibly rewarding and the skills learnt are invaluable for all kinds of further education and careers. It's a real skill to enter into philosophical discussion - and even harder to summarise a whole complex idea into 3 minutes. However, many try to do just such a thing. Here are some examples (focussed on EdExcel AS/A2 Philosophy and Ethics syllabus):

St Thomas Aquinas:

Emmanuel Kant:

David Hume:

A full list of 14 vidoes can be found here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HlBA9_3zj9w&list=PLC8B9FEEB6117B81C

What philosophers could you summarise in 3 minutes? What philosophical ideas could you summarise in 3 minutes?

Why wasn't God at Sandy Hook?

Such an enormous tragedy struck at Sandy Hook School on 14th December 2012. 27 people were killed, including 20 students. It was second only to the massacre at Virginia Tech in 2007 in terms of the loss of human life.

It raises many questions. Firstly, how can anyone make sense of such an event. Episcopal Bishop Ian T. Douglas said, there is "no way we could make sense of what had happened. No explanation or rationale could assuage our shock, pain and grief. As a religious leader, I knew that my job was not to try and make sense of what had happened. Rather my job was to be there, simply be there, with those who had lost loved ones in the terrible rampage."

However the next question, especially to anyone religious is always,"How could God let this happen?"

Bishop Douglas argued that God is always with us and knows suffering in a real sense:

(His son) "was born to a homeless teenage mom and whose birth was attended by barn animals and marginalized sheep tenders. This God-with-us and his parents would then become refugees in Egypt to escape the slaughter of other innocent children at the hand of King Herod. And the same God-with-us, Jesus, would die a torturous death upon the cross as a religious and political revolutionary. We Christians, however, hold onto the truth that three days later Jesus rose from the dead. When confronted with the question "How could God let this happen?" we can proclaim that God is a God who is with us, who suffers with us, and who embodies the promise and reality of new life in the face of death." (Read More)

Interestingly one newspaper decided to formulate a possible conversation with God about the event:

"Do you realize that since prayer was removed from your schools in 1962, teen pregnancy has increased by more than 500 percent? SAT scores have dropped 80 points, teen suicide has tripled, the divorce rate has tripled and violent crime has increased sixfold? Who convinced you that teaching my little ones to pray or learn about who I am would be harmful? The opposite if true. The less someone’s heart depends on me for their life’s purpose, comfort and love, the more likely they are going to commit a crime."

I've no idea how accurate these statistics are, but the conversation ends rather poignantly:

"I understand how these parents feel. My son was murdered, too." (Read More)

Andy Stanley, pastor of North Point Community Church in Alpharetta, interestingly asked what kind of God people were citing with this question:

"The God we put in our back pocket, that we carry around in case of emergencies, the 'come to my rescue God', or the 'God that doesn't allow bad things to happen to good people'....I don't believe that God exists."

He went on to say: "The people who want to differentiate God from pain and evil, they're not talking about the Christian God because from the Old Testament to the New Testament, God is in the midst of pain, leverages pain and, here's the key, redeems pain for good because God is a redeemer....That's the essence of the Gospel. The murder of the innocent son of God resulted in the salvation of the world. That's redemption. It's taking evil and leveraging it for something that's good." (Read More)

Mike Huckabee, former Arkansas governor, reflected on how everything possible has been done in America to remove any aspect of God or faith from daily lives, that it is no surprise that such events occur. He said it was interesting how everyone keeps asking '"Where was God?" when in a day to day way, He is forced out. Huckabee also talks about how God was there, as soon as the tragedy began, with teachers selflessly giving their lives to save their pupils' lives, the comforting hugs from strangers, even in the White House in Obama's speech:

Do you think these reflections bring comfort to the families involved? Do you think that these Christians are right questioning the American public's notion of God? Do you think there is a satisfactory answer?

Various other interesting stories have now also begun emerging....

Should teachers be allowed, even encouraged to carry guns for the 'next time'? It's already legal in Texas! Superintendent David Thweatt said: "If something happened here, we would have to protect our children. You know, police officers are true, everyday heroes in my book, but one of them once told me something very revealing. He said, 'Ninety-five percent of the time, we get to the scene late.' I can’t afford to let that happen." The state of Michigan has just passed law saying it is legal for teachers to bring guns to school. (Read more)
Do you think teachers should be allowed weapons in school? Would it help prevent future tragedies? Should we meet violence with violence, or be ready to 'turn the other cheek' (Matthew 5:38–5:42)?

Westboro Baptist Church continue to give Christians a bad name by planning a praise gathering outside Sandy Hook Elementary school to celebrate God 'executing his judgement'. (Read more)
Do you think Westboro Baptist Church should even be using the word 'Church' in their name? Do you think such an act could ever been seen as coming 'from God'?

Ireland's Abortion Law: Wrong?

 

Is Ireland's abortion law outdated and responsible for a woman's death?

There has been outrage, emotional, calls for investigation, protests and all kinds of debate in the last few days of the very tragic death of Savita Halappanavar.

The story, according to her husband goes something like this:

On the Tuesday morning, she asked to terminate her pregnancy, given her own worsening health and that the 17-week-old foetus was unviable because she was miscarrying, a fact that her husband Praveen said became clear soon after she arrived at the hospital.

But the request was apparently refused, the couple were told that it was against the abortion laws and that "this is a Catholic country". Guardian

Her mother is quoted as saying: "In an attempt to save a 4-month-old foetus they killed my ... daughter. How is that fair you tell me?"

The real controversy revolves around certain key facts, given Irelands' near total ban on abortion:

The 31-year-old dentist died of blood poisoning on 27 October in University Hospital Galway despite asking repeatedly to terminate her 17-week-long pregnancy. Staff refused to carry out an abortion because her husband said they had detected a foetal heartbeat even though the couple were told the baby would not survive. Guardian

However it seems it was not just the abortion law but also medical negligence that resulted in her death. Despite this, mass protests are being arranged around Ireland and also in London in a call to change their laws.

It is a response which some find unjustified and sensationalist in response to the particular case:

Dr Gerry Whyte, an associate professor at Trinity College Dublin, claimed that the law as it stands provides for abortions, but only in cases where it is deemed necessary to save the life of a mother. He said: "The legal principle is clear, in other words, if there was a real and substantial risk to the mother's life and where termination of the pregnancy was necessary to avoid that risk, then she would have been entitled to an abortion. Guardian

An anti-abortion spokesperson had this to say:

Niamh Uí Bhriain, of the Life Institute, said: "It is very sad to see abortion campaigners rush to exploit this case to further their own agenda. The tragic loss of Savita Halappanavar's life was not caused by Ireland's ban on abortion. We need to ensure that mothers and babies are best protected; and abortion is not part of best medical practise. It is medieval medicine." Guardian

Have abortion laws played a part in the woman's death? Is it right that there will now be reopened debate in Ireland? What do you think the consequences will be? Are people right to be out protesting? Are Ireland's laws too strict? Are the UK laws better?

Further reading:

• Why abortions should remain legal: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/the-womens-blog-with-jane-martinson/2012/nov/14/abortion-should-remain-legal

Read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/14/ireland-abortion-law-woman-death and http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/nov/15/irish-abortion-law-blame-death

Dear Religion... Yours, Science: Gervais Tweet

@rickygervais "Dear Religion, This week I safely dropped a human being from space while you shot a child in the head for wanting to go to school. Yours, Science."

 

For those who have missed the news, this tweet related to Felix Baumgautner jumping from a helium balloon in the stratosphere and falling approximately 128,176 feet to earth, landing safely in New Mexico and  a young woman named Malala Yousafzai was shot in the head by a Taliban gunman for campaigning for female education rights. Thankfully she survived and is recovering in a British hospital.

 

Essentially the joke itself is at a level of ignorance "as damaging as that which so many religious people are accused of. It's a sweeping, fundamentalist statement equal to 'money is the root of all evil' or 'religion caused every major war.'" suggests Phillip Ellis of the Huffington Post.

 

He goes on to claim that to make "Felix Baumgautner and science the "winners" of the joke, Gervais (or whoever actually wrote it) only succeeded in trivializing the acts of the Taliban and the fact that a young woman very nearly died."

 

It is fair to claim that some very bad thing have been done in the name of religion. However is it right to include every single religious person in such a sweeping statement? Is it not fundamentalist in its own right, albeit athesit fundamentalism?

 

How would scientists react if religious people started to claim that they were  all responsible for the atom bomb and gas chamber? People would be ridiculed and discredited.

 

Ellis says that it is madness to even be choosing these two events to align, "One is a tragedy perpetrated by a totalitarian regime which uses religion to justify its own agenda. The other was a Red Bull publicity stunt."

 

In strong concluesion he finishes: "Shouldn't our super-modern society be a little bit too evolved and open-minded for the either/or religion vs. science argument? Why must one be superior to the other? Science is essential to the development of technology and medicine and the advancement of our society -- and religion has been a cornerstone of civilisation for millennia. It is incredibly unimaginative to believe that we can only reap the benefits of one at the expense of the other."

 

Do you agree with Ellis? Does Gervais have a point, but just made it badly? Is the crusade of the new athesits, who border on the fundamentalism they despise, helpful in modern society? Is it dangerously divisive?

 

Read original article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/philip-ellis/science-vs-religion_b_1975640.html.

 

Perfect in the Right Light?

This sculture was created by Tim Noble and Sue Webster. On first inspection, it looks like the people are constructed by a lot of unslightly junk. However, when the light is at the right angle, the people look perfect...

Perhaps it is a reminder that people may only appear perfect if they are in the right light? Or is it more than everyone is perfect in some light? For Christians, maybe it is the idea that by the light of Christ, all can be raised to perfection, in heaven?

Read more: http://www.saatchi-gallery.co.uk/artists/noble_webster.htm

Science vs Religion, Again!

On 15th October 2012, a group of theologians, philosophers and physicists came together for two days in Geneva to talk about the Big Bang.

CERN decided that they would facilitate this meeting in light of the discovery of the Higgs boson.

It's important to remember that a "time before the Big Bang" is impossible territory for physicists. Is this an area where theologians and scientists may find common ground?

Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist and director of the Origins Project at Arizona State University, says definitely not:

"One gets the impression from a meeting like this that scientists care about God; they don't. You can't disprove the theory of God. The power of science is uncertainty. Everything is uncertain, but science can define that uncertainty. That's why science makes progress and religion doesn't."

On the other hand you have John Lennox, professor of mathematics at the University of Oxford. He is also a self-declared Christian. He basis for faith is the very fact that human beings can do science; this is evidence for God:

"If the atheists are right the mind that does science... is the end product of a mindless unguided process. Now, if you knew your computer was the product of a mindless unguided process, you wouldn't trust it. So, to me atheism undermines the rationality I need to do science."

Andrew Pinsent is research director at the University of Oxford's Ian Ramsey Centre for Science and Religion who once worked at CERN beleives that engaging with philosophy could help science to better address the very big questions.

"There has been no new conceptual breakthrough in physics in a quarter of a century".

This is partly because science in isolation "is very good for producing stuff" but not so good for producing ideas, he beleives.

Dr Pinsent concluedes his feelings on the meeting:

"Many people of faith view science as a threat... I don't think science is a threat, so it is useful for scientists to show that they don't necessarily view it that way."

As one contributor put it during the meeting: "Religion doesn't add to scientific facts, but it does shape our view of the world."

Do you think science and religion are 'in battle'? Do people like Dr Pinsent and Dr Lennox help the debate and allow people to see common ground? What do people like Dr Krauss contribute? Remember that the Big Bang theory was first devised by a Catholic priest, Georges Lemaitre!

See original article here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-19997789

3mins Of Procrastination To Stop Procrastination

"Putting off or delaying,especially something requiring immediate attention: She was smart,but her constant procrastination led her to be late with almost every assignment."

If you struggle with your time management, maybe this video will help...

Circumcision = GBH?

A court in Cologne has ruled: the "fundamental right of the child to bodily integrity outweighed the fundamental rights of the parents... The religious freedom of the parents and their right to educate their child would not be unacceptably compromised, if they were obliged to wait until the child could himself decide to be circumcised"

This could set a precedent in an area which has been debated in Jewish and Muslim bioethics for a long time: should parents be allowed to circumcise their children?

The case came about after a 4 year old Muslim boy was admitted a week after his circumcision bleeding heavily.

The doctor was charged with GBH, a charge that was dropped on appeal on the grounds that the parents had given permission. A further regional court also dismissed the case, but on the grounds that the law was not clear.

However the court went on to add that: "The body of the child is irreparably and permanently changed by a circumcision... This change contravenes the interests of the child to decide later on his religious beliefs."

This does not change the law, and it will remain legal for boys to be circumcised (unlike for girls). Yet it does set a precedent that could be followed by other German courts, and further afield, in a similar case.

Dieter Graumann, head of the Central Committee of Jews, said the ruling was: "an unprecedented and dramatic intervention in the right of religious communities to self-determination... [It is an] outrageous and insensitive act. Circumcision of newborn boys is a fixed part of the Jewish religion and has been practised worldwide for centuries."

In the United States, the World Health Organisation estimates that nearly one in three males under 15 is circumcised, usually for hygiene reasons.

Many thousands of young boys are circumcised every year in Germany, with many belonging to the Jewish and Muslim communities. The court specified that circumcision was not illegal if carried out for medical reasons.

Do you think circumcision amounts to GBH? Do you think families should be allowed to circumcise their children on religious grounds? What do you think the effects on the child may be?

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/germany/9358636/Jewish-groups-condemn-courts-definition-of-circumcision-as-grievous-bodily-harm.html

What is Philosophy?

"Philosophy is 99 per cent about critical reflection on anything you care to be interested in." - Richard Bradley

Brain Pickings is a website which produces a weekly digest containing lots of different interesting articles, many of which link to religious education, and in particular AS/A2 philosophy. A few weeks ago it had an article discussing some of the definitions of philosophy as cited in Nigel Warburton's book, Philosophy Bites (based on his excellent website - www.philosophybites.com).

He observes in the book’s introduction, “philosophy is an unusual subject in that its practitioners don’t agree what it’s about.”

Indeed after a years study, my Y12 students may be able to give some kind of explination of what they have been studying, but would perhaps struggle with defining philosophy itself. Additionally some students are now looking at universities and investigating the possibility of studying philosophy... yet our studies in school have merely focussed on one branch, the philosophy of religion.

"I’m hard pressed to say, but one thing that is certainly true is that ‘What is Philosophy?’ is itself a strikingly philosophical question.” - A. W. Moore

Defining philosophy can be as tough as studying it, but (I'm hoping!) one that students thoroughly enjoy.

Read more definitions here: http://www.brainpickings.org/index.php/2012/04/09/what-is-philosophy/

Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do?

This is the title of a book by Michael Sandel which was a NY Times bestseller. It is book on the big questions in political philosophy and covers issues such as bank bailouts, equality and inequality, taxes, immigration, affirmative action, the role of markets, national service, same-sex marriage, the place of religion in politics and other ethics dilemmas of our times.

A website has been set up by Harvard University, which shows his lectures on a range of these ethical issues with questions for thought and reflection. A fascinating resource for those looking to take philosophy and ethics further!

The videos are all found here: http://www.justiceharvard.org/watch/

Why did the chicken cross the road ?

Many thanks to www.the-philosophy.com for this, a little light hearted relief for AS/A2 Philosophy and Ethics students:

Why did the chicken cross the road?

We give our version of the famous game “Why did the chicken cross the road” on the basis of some philosophers.

Plato: To get to the essence of good
Marx: It was historically inevitable
Machiavelli: To instill fear in other chickens
Nietzsche: On the assertion of its will to power
Sartre: The chicken was ordered to cross the road
De Beauvoir: One is not born chicken, one becomes
Samuel Beckett: Because he was tired of waiting
Aristotle: To stop being in power, but in act
Camus: To challenge the absurdity of the world
Darwin: Because the chicken in the evolution of species, has become an animal crossing
Epicurus: To have fun
Kant: for respect the moral law
Pyrrho: What road ?
Zeno of Elea: To prove that he could never reach the other side
Kierkegaard: In despair of his chicken condition
Shakespeare: That is the question
Stuart Mill: To maximize his pleasure
Galilee: And yet, he crossed
Heidegger: Because the chicken is the shepherd of Being
Descartes: I cross, therefore I am
Hegel: To realize the reason in history
Spinoza: The chicken thinks he has freely crossed the road, but it ignores the causes he did so through
Rousseau: Because the chicken is good by nature
Pascal: Because the chicken is a thinking reed
Heraclitus: The chicken crossed because we never cross the same road twice
Hume: For me the chicken is a fictional idea
Husserl: It is the constitution of the ego that epoche, a mutation ego-ego notwithstanding the noetic-noematic component which is the origin of the object “road” for the subject “chicken”.
Mitterrand: The Road, it’s war
Confucius: Act against chicken as you would have them do unto you
Freud: The road is very clearly a phallic symbol, the fact of the cross reveals a profound liberation of the instincts (or that) chicken.
Leibniz: To maintain the universal harmony of the world.
Voltaire: To reduce intolerance
Aristotle: Because the chicken is a political animal

See original here: http://www.the-philosophy.com/chicken-cross-road-philosophical-game

Arguements for Atheism

This video has been circulating the internet for years. Many atheists went mad when they saw it... equally some Christians agreed with it. However there has been much reported about how actually man has played a big part in adapting bananas. Is this good evidence for God as designer? Do people like this damage Christians' arguements for design in the world?

On a similar topic, a blog post on Patheos, outlined 3 arguments that athesits can no longer use for the non-existence of God:

1) Babies Are Atheists
2) Priests Abuse Boys
3) Light Before Sun

Read these in more detail: http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2012/05/3-arguments-atheists-arent-allowed-to-use-anymore.html

Do you think that the evidence put forward is convincing? What arguments can athesists still use?

The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin

The Archbishop of Canterbury, Prof. Richard Dawkins and Sir Anthony Kenny took part in a discussion titled "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin". Held at the Sheldonian Theatre, Oxford in Feb 2012.

Video version: http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/nature-human-beings-and-question-their-ultimate-origin-video
Audio version (inc mp3 download link): http://podcasts.ox.ac.uk/nature-human-beings-and-question-their-ultimate-origin-audio

This was reported at the time with the headline: "Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist"
Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/religion/9102740/Richard-Dawkins-I-cant-be-sure-God-does-not-exist.html

I have blogged about this before(http://talkingdonkeyre.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/science-vs-god-richard-dawkins-takes-on.html), but this is a high quality video/audio download.

Are you suprised by some of Dawkin's or Williams' comments? Do you think God does 'clutter' our view of the world?