Home » Uncategorized » Charles Darwin’s Descendant a Catholic

Charles Darwin’s Descendant a Catholic

Sacerdotus

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 3,679 other followers

Twitter

Blog Stats

  • 79,535 hits
August 2013
M T W T F S S
« Jul   Sep »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  

 

The great-great-great granddaughter of the “Father” of Evolution has joined the Catholic Church and is now an apologist aiding the new evangelization.  Laura Keynes, is a direct descendant of Charles Darwin who is known for bringing the world the notion of Evolution.

While studying for her doctorate in philosophy at Oxford, she says she began to “reassess those values – relationships, feminism, moral relativism, the sanctity and dignity of human life.”  This reassessment would lead her home to the Catholic Church.  As a seeker of truth, Keynes read Dawkin’s book, “The God Delusion” and found the so-called “New Atheism” to be nothing more that a system, that harbors “...a germ of intolerance and contempt for people that could only undermine secular Humanist claims to liberalism

I myself do not get tired of stressing that atheism today harms itself by being a contradiction.  It is a one-sided belief that preaches free thought and humanity at the expense of suppressing them in others who do not believe as the atheist does.  The atheist does not realize how fallacious atheism is, and this is frightening indeed.

Keynes says something important about atheists.  She says:

If atheism’s claim to the intellectual high ground is bolstered by my ancestor’s characteristic ability to explore and analyze inconsistencies in the evidence, that same family characteristic led me towards a skeptical assessment of what can and can’t be known absolutely.

 

Perhaps atheists should adopt this.  If they claim to be skeptical and free thinkers, then instead of brushing off evidence for God, they should analyze it without any filters just as Keynes has. This allowed her to find the truth and become a Catholic and an apologist.

 

 

Jesus said it best in John 8:32: “Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source:

 

http://www.catholicherald.co.uk/news/2013/06/13/descendant-of-darwin-becomes-a-catholic-apologist/

 

http://www.strangenotions.com/author/laura-keynes/

 

http://www.catholicvoices.org.uk/

Advertisements

6 Comments

  1. agnophilo says:

    “I myself do not get tired of stressing that atheism today harms itself by being a contradiction. It is a one-sided belief that preaches free thought and humanity at the expense of suppressing them in others who do not believe as the atheist does.”

    Disagreeing with and suppressing are not the same thing. How are atheists (and particularly the ones you listed) suppressing anyone else’s beliefs? You list richard dawkins as an example, who actively promoted an effort to make sure every public school in london had a copy of the king james bible.

    I’m sick of people attacking atheists by simply lying about and pigeonholing us. Yes, we all just go “la la la la I can’t hear you” when you theists provide such compelling evidence for your invisible, undetectable deity whose qualities and existence must be taken on faith.

    • Sacerdotus says:

      Don’t be silly. Atheists constantly try to suppress religion in the public square. From Nativity scenes, to prayer in public; atheists try hard to lock religion down. You need to be up to date to this reality. Dawkins support of the Bible in public school was an attempt to aid his erroneous conclusions that the Bible is an immoral book. By having it distributed in a secular institution, he hoped instructors would high light certain passages and take them out of context in order to present the Bible as a evil book. I am not attacking atheists. I attack atheism. Many of my friends and relatives are atheists. I myself used to be one. Why would I attack them? Evidence for God exists. The problem is the mental filter than atheists apply that does not allow them to process the evidence. It is a known fact that an atheist’s frontal lobe shuts off when contemplating God. This area of the brain controls reason.

  2. agnophilo says:

    “Don’t be silly. Atheists constantly try to suppress religion in the public square. From Nativity scenes, to prayer in public; atheists try hard to lock religion down. You need to be up to date to this reality.”

    No, you need to be. What atheists (and millions of theists) are against is forcing one person’s religion on another person, either by forcing everyone’s children to pray to one deity of one religion or by forcing people to pay for religious displays of religions they do not believe in. To quote thomas jefferson “To compel a man to furnish contributions of money for the propagation of opinions which he disbelieves and abhors, is sinful and tyrannical.”

    It would be just as offensive (and illegal) to force school children in public schools to repeat a statement every day saying there is no god or to force christians to pay for anti-christian displays. You say you used to be an atheist but you have no notion of the other side’s point of view on an issue as basic as first amendment rights, which is not even an atheist issue, but simply one that effects every religious minority, and one which would get no traction without the aid and support of tens of millions of christians who understand and value and wish to protect the rights of religious minorities. Nearly every judge who rules in favor of separation of church and state is christian. It is not an atheists vs theists issue, it’s an issue of basic fairness. Promote your religion all you like, but is it so horrible to ask that you not pick my pocket to do so? Christians in america think themselves persecuted because they can’t force everyone else to be like them, build churches with public funds etc. In their minds their religious rights are violated every time they cannot violate someone else’s religious rights.

    “Dawkins support of the Bible in public school was an attempt to aid his erroneous conclusions that the Bible is an immoral book. By having it distributed in a secular institution, he hoped instructors would high light certain passages and take them out of context in order to present the Bible as a evil book.”

    No, it wasn’t. While yes he does think that the bible is probably the single biggest cause of atheism, the reasons he listed were actually about the importance in reading the bible in order to understand english literature, world culture and other academic subjects. As for taking scripture out of context, you don’t have to do so in order to find evil in it. I’ve yet to find the right context where passages instructing burning people to death or beating slaves or any of a dozen other things were righteous and good.

    “I am not attacking atheists. I attack atheism.”

    You’re listing the atheists you’re attacking by name.

    “Many of my friends and relatives are atheists. I myself used to be one.”

    Did you skip church for a summer or something and now call yourself an atheist? You don’t seem to have done a great deal of thinking from a secular point of view.

    “Why would I attack them?”

    In order to justify ignoring what they have to say presumably.

    “Evidence for God exists.”

    Where?

    “The problem is the mental filter than atheists apply that does not allow them to process the evidence.”

    Years ago I would make a bargain with religious people. If they told me their reasons for believing and I couldn’t pick them apart logically I would convert to their religion on the spot. If they couldn’t give a single reason I couldn’t pick apart, they would have to at least reconsider their beliefs. Note this is lopsided, I have to convert, they have to just think about their beliefs. Every time I made this bargain (and it was many times) it ended the same way – I would shred their reasons for belief handily, and they would refuse to fulfill even their watered down, candy-A#$ part of the deal. They wouldn’t even lie and say they would think about it for my benefit.

    I’ve heard the reasons people give for believing in god, and I’ve seriously thought about them. I’ve done more than that, I’ve taken them apart and put them back together again. Don’t tell me atheists have something wrong with their brain that makes them incapable of thinking about other peoples’ views. Is there anything you’ve said to me that I haven’t given a thoughtful response to?

    “It is a known fact that an atheist’s frontal lobe shuts off when contemplating God. This area of the brain controls reason.”

    Who knows it and based on what? Give a source for this claim please.

    • Sacerdotus says:

      No one forces religion on anyone, unless he/she is a terrorist of some sort. People choose to accept a particular religion based on their personal faith and how the religion is presented to them. While there are some people who force conversions such as Islamist radicals, these groups are a minority who use religion for political purposes. They do not represent the religion. To my knowledge, no one is paying for any religious displays. Today, the Obama administration is forcing religions to pay for contraception and other things that goes against religion. This is the real threat, not religion. No religion in America or elsewhere has ever campaigned to censor atheism. Atheists are the ones who take churches to court, put up posters and billboards and what not. They pick a fight with us, not the other way around.

      You have to realize that the majority of Americans are Christian. Naturally, the majority will be catered to since their needs are greater than the minorities. Those who do not want to learn of God or say statements referring to God do not have to. They can walk out or refuse to do so. Jehovah’s Witnesses do not join in patriotic songs that mention God and there is no outcry for this. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head. I used to be an atheist yes, and understand the first amendment exists to protect religion from the government. The amendment is clear that the government cannot establish a religion nor prohibit it. Judges who use the phrase “separation of church and state” do not understand the first amendment. This phrase is not even part of the amendment. It comes from a LETTER written by Jefferson. Since when does a letter hold legal weight? As an atheist, I said the pledge without “under God” and did not participate in patriotic songs that mentioned God. I did not become a black cloud and protested. I understood the heritage of my nation and respect it. Moreover, I know of no church building that is built with public funds. Congregations raise funds for construction. This is how it has always been done. I think you are confusing churches with stadiums or sports teams who often use public monies.

      From what I read, Dawkins was clear on his intention. He hoped that by reading the Bible in a secular institution, readers without a proper explanation will subscribe to his erroneous views that the Bible is evil. Anyone who believes this falls into presentism. They are interpreting ancient texts with the understanding of today. The British did horrible things from beheading people, to torture and genocide. Should we believe the British to be an evil sadistic ethnicity because of what is written in history of them? It makes more sense to understand how people thought back then and the punishments that were used based on that understanding. Similarly, the Bible has records of events that seem horrific to us today but were the norm at the time it was written. We must understand this reality and not judge the people of the past for not being in our time in 2013. I’m sure in the future, humanity will think of our generation as barbaric for allowing abortion and the death penalty if they judge us without understanding the time we lived in and how we understood rights and justice.

      What atheists am I listing? The only ones I name are the public ones who are already known such as Dawkins etc. I attack their opinions, not them. I have always been an atheist since I could remember. You have no right to doubt me without knowing me personally. You are being rude and disrespectful. Just because I don’t subscribe to your misinformed definition of atheism does not mean I was not one. I only attack atheism as an belief, not the people. For evidence of God, continue following my blog. I am doing a series on it and already presented one post. More is coming and will get more complicated as I dwell in physics and other science disciplines. I have 4 posts on draft and am constantly editing them so they are readable for a general audience and not just physicists, philosophers, theologians or scientists in general.

      To date neither you or any other atheist online has seriously refuted any of my posts. All I get are insults, defamation of character and a rewording of the same atheist nonsense I refuted on the blog posts. Rewording what I refuted is called a circular argument. You are using the same old arguments that have been refuted. I invite you to try to refute my blog posts without saying “you’re wrong, that’s not science, you’re a fool etc.” Actually show something other than appeal to ignorance or special pleading.

      I’m curious to read why you don’t believe. What is the obstacle? Post it on my atheist vent post, not here. A blog post is coming up soon regarding the frontal lobe study, so be patient. This study was done by a neurologist and is very interesting. Once you read the blog post, you will hopefully understand why atheists are the way they are and why they have a hard time reasoning. Again, this is not an attack on the atheist but a reflection of the reality demonstrated in cat scans.

  3. agnophilo says:

    “No one forces religion on anyone, unless he/she is a terrorist of some sort.”

    You have a gross double-standard, you only consider something offensive when non-christians do it. Unless a christian is putting a knife to my throat and telling me “convert or die” nothing christians do is a violation of my religious liberties, but if an atheist sues a christian organization for any reason or a gay person lobbies for equal rights christians are being persecuted.

    “People choose to accept a particular religion based on their personal faith and how the religion is presented to them. While there are some people who force conversions such as Islamist radicals, these groups are a minority who use religion for political purposes. They do not represent the religion.”

    I gave examples of what I was talking about. I don’t understand how you can not understand what I was referring to unless you’re willfully trying not to.

    “To my knowledge, no one is paying for any religious displays.”

    So in your mind religious displays appear by magic?

    “Today, the Obama administration is forcing religions to pay for contraception and other things that goes against religion. This is the real threat, not religion.”

    So just to get clear if you are forced to pay for condoms that is evil and a threat because you don’t agree with the morality of contraception, but if I am forced to subsidize your religion with tax exemption and pay for religious displays (that favor one religion and are not even close to being multicultural or inclusive) on public property that I do not agree with and am morally opposed to, that’s fine. Do you have no capacity for empathy? Can’t you take two seconds to realize that something that is offensive and immoral to do to you is also offensive and immoral to do to someone else who isn’t exactly like you? And by the way the difference with the condoms is that they have a choice. They can either accept billions of dollars in federal funding (in addition to not paying taxes) and accept the strings that come with that money or not get vast amounts of cash and do whatever they want. Giving someone money conditionally is not a violation of their rights, it is a contractual agreement. Which by the way is why the courts struck down their objection. It’s the legal equivalent of saying that people on food stamps are having their second amendment rights violated because they can’t buy guns with food stamps.

    “No religion in America or elsewhere has ever campaigned to censor atheism.”

    Every major religion has. Webster’s dictionary defined atheism as “immorality” until the 40’s or so. 7 states explicitly bar atheists from holding public office in their constitutions. Not attending mass in the british colonies was punishable by ten lashes. In nazi germany (which was almost 97% christian) notable atheists like sigmund freud were arrested and their books burned in the streets. Just because you don’t know the history of how other groups have been persecuted doesn’t mean it never happened.

    “Atheists are the ones who take churches to court,”

    Atheists don’t have a hive mind. Atheists sue churches, churches sue atheists and everything in between. Lawsuits are how we settle irreconcilable differences in a civilized society.

    “put up posters and billboards and what not.”

    Yeah, religious people don’t evangelize at all. There are no religious billboards attacking atheists or threatening us with hell…

    in reality we have to put up with shit like this:

    That’s from answers in genesis, the largest creationist ministry in the US.

    “They pick a fight with us, not the other way around.”

    While yes, atheists do occasionally bite the heels of christians and do or say something offensive or stupid, 9 times out of ten they are simply defending themselves from an attempt to violate their rights.

    “You have to realize that the majority of Americans are Christian. Naturally, the majority will be catered to since their needs are greater than the minorities.”

    The needs of minorities are almost universally greater than the needs of the majority. Should american law cater to white people because blacks and hispanics are so much better off? And we’re not talking about financial aid going to who needs it the most, we’re talking about the bill of rights. You’re saying that because there are more christians other groups shouldn’t have the same basic freedoms and protections. Should the police protect white people more too?

    “Those who do not want to learn of God or say statements referring to God do not have to. They can walk out or refuse to do so.”

    So if we made it mandatory for all school children of all ages to recite a statement about how god doesn’t exist and christianity is false every morning that would be fine because they could just not recite it? Because we all know an 8 year old knows what’s best for them and has the wherewithal to protest against the rights they haven’t even learned they have being violated.

    “Jehovah’s Witnesses do not join in patriotic songs that mention God and there is no outcry for this. No one is holding a gun to anyone’s head.”

    I’m not talking about a religious song or patriotic song at a sporting event, I’m talking about indoctrinating young children and using the federal government to do it..

    “I used to be an atheist yes, and understand the first amendment exists to protect religion from the government.”

    And to protect citizens from religion.

    “The amendment is clear that the government cannot establish a religion nor prohibit it. Judges who use the phrase “separation of church and state” do not understand the first amendment. This phrase is not even part of the amendment. It comes from a LETTER written by Jefferson.”

    I know. So does the phrase “we hold these rights to be self-evident, that all men are created equal…” Judges are allowed to use phrases and even words not found in the constitution. They’re even allowed to use words that didn’t exist when the constitution was written. Crazy, right?

    “Since when does a letter hold legal weight?”

    It doesn’t, the phrase describes a concept in the constitution and the writings of the founders are used to understand their intention when a particular part of the constitution is in dispute. Using this phrase or that phrase is irrelevant. Judges use the phrase “separation of church and state” because they’re experts in the law and the constitution.

    “As an atheist, I said the pledge without “under God” and did not participate in patriotic songs that mentioned God. I did not become a black cloud and protested.”

    As I said, I will be sure to start schools promoting atheism to young children as soon as possible, I didn’t know that was okay to do. I thought it was a horrible violation of the parents’ and child’s rights and was in direct conflict with the constitution. But apparently it’s fine. Or is it only fine when you do it to other peoples’ kids?

    “I understood the heritage of my nation and respect it.”

    What is that supposed to mean?

    “Moreover, I know of no church building that is built with public funds. Congregations raise funds for construction. This is how it has always been done. I think you are confusing churches with stadiums or sports teams who often use public monies.”

    I didn’t say anything about churches being built with public funds, I said religious displays, such as religious plaques, decorations, statues etc which are all over the place in courthouses and town squares and are paid for with tax dollars. But now that you mention it all church construction is publicly subsidized by tax exemption which is another form of subsidy.

    “From what I read, Dawkins was clear on his intention. He hoped that by reading the Bible in a secular institution, readers without a proper explanation will subscribe to his erroneous views that the Bible is evil.”

    So quote him saying that. And don’t you have any concept that people can honestly disagree with you without being perverse and deliberately sinister? The way you describe dawkins you think he’s out to trick people and deceive them. You say you don’t hate or attack atheists but you make us out to be not just wrong, but evil.

    “Anyone who believes this falls into presentism. They are interpreting ancient texts with the understanding of today. The British did horrible things from beheading people, to torture and genocide. Should we believe the British to be an evil sadistic ethnicity because of what is written in history of them? It makes more sense to understand how people thought back then and the punishments that were used based on that understanding. Similarly, the Bible has records of events that seem horrific to us today but were the norm at the time it was written. We must understand this reality and not judge the people of the past for not being in our time in 2013.”

    The difference is that nobody is saying that the brits of old were infallible, or that this or that text of theirs is infallible. If I said the original US constitution was infallible but also disagreed with racism, slavery and sexism, believed in women’s suffrage etc, I would logically have to either reject those values or stop believing in the infallibility of the text. You’ve chosen option 3 which is to pretend that the text merely *describes* bad things other people did thus absolving it and it’s authors of any responsibility. The bible does sometimes just describe bad things, but it also condones and instructs them. A lot. I can forgive people for being backwards and ignorant, but I cannot believe a god was equally backwards and ignorant. You must either reject the doctrine of biblical infallibility or reject modern morality. Or just continue to rationalize.

    “I’m sure in the future, humanity will think of our generation as barbaric for allowing abortion and the death penalty if they judge us without understanding the time we lived in and how we understood rights and justice.”

    I’m sure they will think us backwards for many things. And I hope nobody claims we or any of our books were in any sense infallible. It would really hold back progress.

    “What atheists am I listing?”

    The ones you listed.

    “The only ones I name are the public ones who are already known such as Dawkins etc. I attack their opinions, not them.”

    When you say repeatedly that they are trying to trick people, yes, you are attacking them.

    “I have always been an atheist since I could remember.”

    Define atheist and when did you convert?

    “You have no right to doubt me without knowing me personally.”

    I can doubt whatever I like.

    “You are being rude and disrespectful.”

    It was not my intention, I just have a hard time believing people shared my worldview when they don’t seem to be able to relate to it at all.

    “Just because I don’t subscribe to your misinformed definition of atheism does not mean I was not one.”

    What misinformed definition is that?

    “I only attack atheism as an belief, not the people.”

    Again, listed people by name and disparaged their character.

    “For evidence of God, continue following my blog. I am doing a series on it and already presented one post. More is coming and will get more complicated as I dwell in physics and other science disciplines. I have 4 posts on draft and am constantly editing them so they are readable for a general audience and not just physicists, philosophers, theologians or scientists in general.”

    God is not a phenomenon that is studied in nature so I’m guessing your science proves god blogs are all of the god of the gaps variety.

    “To date neither you or any other atheist online has seriously refuted any of my posts.”

    Give me a link.

    “All I get are insults, defamation of character and a rewording of the same atheist nonsense I refuted on the blog posts. Rewording what I refuted is called a circular argument. You are using the same old arguments that have been refuted.”

    What “same old arguments” and what has been refuted?

    “I invite you to try to refute my blog posts without saying “you’re wrong, that’s not science, you’re a fool etc.” Actually show something other than appeal to ignorance or special pleading.”

    I’ve done nothing of the sort. Again there’s an empathy gap, you say it’s rude of me to doubt you then implicitly accuse me of being a jerk who name-calls and can’t think in a straight line.

    “I’m curious to read why you don’t believe. What is the obstacle? Post it on my atheist vent post, not here.”

    It’s not a long answer – the total absence of compelling evidence.

    If you want to know about my “journey” here’s a blog I wrote on another site:

    http://agnophilo.xanga.com/768099917/how-and-why-i-became-an-atheist-if-anyone-is-curious/

    Sorry for posting it here but it’s just a single link and I don’t know where your other blog is.

    “A blog post is coming up soon regarding the frontal lobe study, so be patient. This study was done by a neurologist and is very interesting.”

    I watched a youtube video of a lecture by a neurologist recently that talked about the disconnect between the brain and the mind, how we understand some of how the brain works but cannot extrapolate from brain states to the mind, and why. He talked about headlines like the one you’re citing making broad generalizations based on thin evidence and said that talking about the brain is science, talking about the mind is storytelling. I googled to try to find the study you were talking about and found some article about how atheists, when asked to think about god have less activity in their mind (suggesting less thought) and I put myself in the place of the atheist, I imagined if someone asked me to “think about god” what would come to mind. And not much did. The reason is that “god” to me is an empty term for something that doesn’t exist. It’s like asking someone to think intensely about a box with nothing in it. If you are having a hard time empathizing imagine someone asked you to think about zeus – would your mind flood with ideas, concepts, memories etc? Or would you think “uh… zeus, lightning… most powerful god… hercules was his kid… that’s about it”. Whereas if you asked someone who believed in zeus 2,000 years ago they would remember every lightning storm cowering in fear of zeus, every night at the temple praying for a good harvest, they would have decades of thoughts and memories to draw from because they would’ve seen their entire life as being effected by zeus. The same is true of people who think yahweh is influencing their lives, answering their prayers. They don’t just think about god they think about everything in the universe and every detail of their life as pertaining to god. An atheist doesn’t.

    It makes perfect sense that an atheist would have less to think about.

    “Once you read the blog post, you will hopefully understand why atheists are the way they are and why they have a hard time reasoning. Again, this is not an attack on the atheist but a reflection of the reality demonstrated in cat scans.”

    Oh sure, we’re just brain damaged and mentally defective. Your mom was a whore – I don’t mean any offense by that and am not attacking you or your mom in any way. She just totally did guys for cash.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Categories

%d bloggers like this: