I've been thinking more about the significance of the Dawkins-Harris-Dennett-Hitchens-PZ genre of atheism writing. Matt Nisbet and other folks seem to feel very threatened by it, worrying about an anti-secular backlash. Just saying it that way makes me want to laugh. Oh, those uppity atheists! But that's just one of the anti-Dawkins tropes. Another is that the "New Atheist" (itself an invidious term) is intellectually unsophisticated and ignorant about religion and theology. I'll freely admit I am not an expert on theology. Why would I want to waste my time? I'm not an expert in astrology, either. At least astrology is testable and shown to be bad science, so I don't bother with it. Theology is an internal argument with its own rules. Like chess or quilting or marathoning there is a lot to know. But if I say the rules of chess shouldn't govern my life, am I out of bounds because I'm not a chess master?
At least one thing Dawkins and company is saying is that religion is a fairy tale. You know. This fairy tale (courtesy Hans Christian Andersen):
Many years ago, there lived an emperor who was quite an average fairy tale ruler, with one exception: he cared much about his clothes. One day he heard from two swindlers named Guido and Luigi Farabutto that they could make the finest suit of clothes from the most beautiful cloth. This cloth, they said, also had the special capability that it was invisible to anyone who was either stupid or not fit for his position.Being a bit nervous about whether he himself would be able to see the cloth, the emperor first sent two of his trusted men to see it. Of course, neither would admit that they could not see the cloth and so praised it. All the townspeople had also heard of the cloth and were interested to learn how stupid their neighbors were.
The emperor then allowed himself to be dressed in the clothes for a procession through town, never admitting that he was too unfit and stupid to see what he was wearing. He was afraid that the other people would think that he was stupid.
Of course, all the townspeople wildly praised the magnificent clothes of the emperor, afraid to admit that they could not see them, until a small child said:
"But he has nothing on!" (plot synopsis via Wikipedia)
Dawkins and his merry clear-eyed band are saying (at the very least): "Hey. The High Priest is naked. And look! He's fat, and he's got the Pox. He's babbling and not making any sense. And by the way, he's a pathetic Dirty Old Man." In addition, Dawkins and his cohorts (including Scienceblogs own PZ Myers) are saying you aren't stupid or wicked or immoral if you don't believe. You are rational.
Nothing deep. Nothing fancy. But it's enough and it's necessary.
- Log in to post comments
How much theology should one know?
Here's a full course, Theology 101, in four words:
There are no gods.
That it. No gods. Fact. End of. Story.
OK, advanced students might want to study the much longer course, Theology 201, for additional credit:
But some people believe there are gods. They are wrong.
Study religion, religious ideas and the impact of religion on society and history by all means. But theology? Why waste time on arguments about gods when there aren't any, surely not just to please a bunch of delusionals?
Is it acceptable behaviour to be forthright? Yes, I think so, as a product of English schools, I had to listen to our headmaster, an ordained priest of the Church of England, drivelling on at the start of every school day, propagating the lies of the church. And I got dragged to church by my parents to listen to more lies.
I listened to those lies politely. Now I feel there is no shame in telling the truth.
Of course, it helps when a christian priest wears a dog collar: I think the symbolism is that it looks like his head is on backwards, which reflects the fact that he talks out of his backside!
Of course not. But perhaps you'd be open to criticism if you were ignorant beyond the basics of chess but stated flatly that chess was a stupid game, a waste of time, and only idiots would ever bother with it.
Are the anti-religion ranters ignorant of religion? Well, their bellowings certainly bear no relationship to the practice and meaning of religion as I see them in a number of my relatives and friends. And the other point that strikes me is that there have been and continue to be people of considerably greater intellect/insight than me who find worthwhile insights and values in religion. For that reason alone, I personally am not quite to quick to dismiss it so scornfully and dogmatically.
And no, I'm not being defensive - I've been an unbeliever for some 35 years. As a secular person, am I offended by some of the ranting? Yes.
Are my mild-mannered and brief comments likely to change many minds? No ... and neither are the tiresome rantings.
worrying about an anti-secular backlash
It reminds me of Republicans always giving Democrats advice for their own good, lest the Democrats suffer an electoral catastrophe, which the Republicans are so concerned about.
But religion is testable!
At least for that sub set of religion that believes in two-way communication with god.
VAST MAJORITY IN SOUTH.
As Jethro Tull said:wait for a firm reply.
When making a request (prayer) ask for a 12 to 18 digit undiscovered prime number.*
Or as Ronald Reagan use to say TRUST BUT VERIFY!
If you dont ask for a LONG prime number how do you know its not your subconscious?
DARWIN
* Example: 1 3 7 11 etc. Prime numbers are numbers that are only divisible by 1. Large prime numbers are hard to find.
1 isn't a prime number, and your definition's a bit off. Prime numbers are numbers which are not 1 and which are only divisible by 1 and themselves.
People have been clearly pointing out that religion is bunk for a long time - yet religion is stronger than ever. The notion that a bit of strategy is in order is hardly worthy of the misrepresentation and derision it has received.
Getting people to understand at any rate higher than chance involves understanding them. It's annoying, yes; but rooted in human nature. It is no less delusional than religion itself to think we can tell people they are utter fools and that all the promises on which they base their lives are false, and then to think they'll lean in with interest and say; "Really? Tell me more!" Some people (the examples of our selection bias) work that way but the majority do not.
It is probably not necessary to understand (much) theology because theologies differ among believers. The common thread among believers is the desire to believe. Understand that desire and you'll have something on which to build effective communications.
We're pretty much pounding on the wall when we ought to be looking for the door.
also, darwin, you forgot 2. The only non-odd number that is a prime.
decriptoldfool:
Exactly. To take that a step farther, I sometimes wonder whether the anti-religion ranters have actually thought about what they are trying to accomplish.
Many of those who are identifiably from the US seem to be primarily concerned about the effect on public policy of the "fundies" and others ... things like school education policies and so on. If they believe that the only way to "win" is to destroy religion, fair enough. I disagree with them, but at least that would demonstrate some logic. However, it sometimes seems to me that many of them have lost sight of the actual problem. A bad public policy is not bad because it's based on someone's beliefs - it's bad because it can be demonstrated to have undesirable effects.
The whole "religion" thrashing is largely a red herring, in my opinion.
"If they believe that the only way to "win" is to destroy religion, fair enough."
I can't speak for everyone is this general "they", but my goal isn't so much to destroy religion but to destroy the deferential attitude people have toward it.
"However, it sometimes seems to me that many of them have lost sight of the actual problem. A bad public policy is not bad because it's based on someone's beliefs - it's bad because it can be demonstrated to have undesirable effects."
Is this supposed to be an argument? Do you really think that any atheist is arguing that teaching creationism, abstinence only sex ed, bans on certain types of biomedical research, are bad only because they are based on someone's beliefs? No, what I see is a root problem, and that is that faith-based beliefs are allowed to influence public policy to a large degree due to the fact that it is considered rude or even taboo to tackle beliefs that are considered "faith".
This has effects outside of the realm of traditional religion too, btw. Witness the British NHS funding dispensers of homeopathy. It all comes down to the basic maxim that ideas have consequences.
Scott Belyea:
I'd say they are simply writing down, in order to solidify, the case against religion. There are certainly plenty of people out there trying to make the other side.
If questioning people's beliefs is considered harsh (and I would imagine it certainly seems harsh to those who hold them), then sure, they are being harsh. But that doesn't make them wrong. As Dawkins points out, religious beliefs are given an enormous amount of automatic respect, to the point that it is considered offensive by society to question any of them. This matters, because what people believe really does matter to society.
I agree. But far too often the motivation for support of these policies is based on religious beliefs. In some cases, even the metric by which the desirableness or undesirableness is determined is based on one's religious beliefs.
When it comes down to it, I think the only reason these atheist writers are scorned is because they violate the un-earned, yet always respected, "no-question-zone" around religious beliefs. I say, thank you for doing it!
"People have been clearly pointing out that religion is bunk for a long time - yet religion is stronger than ever."
It certainly isn't "stronger than ever" in Western Europe and Scandinavia. Though you could argue that this has a lot to do with the cultural nihilism brought about WWI and WWII, the influence of secular ideology extending from the Enlightenment onward certainly played a role.
It's certainly more politically empowered in America, though I doubt that much has changed all that drastically in terms of who believes what. In fact, religion is probably the strongest in terms of actual belief where there are the greatest restrictions on confronting it. The middle east comes to mind.
I didn't say that. I said ...
"A bad public policy is not bad because it's based on someone's beliefs - it's bad because it can be demonstrated to have undesirable effects."
Argue the bad effects by all means. The beliefs are irrelevant and a distraction.
As long as you're flexible enough to categorize calling people "idiots" and worse as questioning their beliefs. I'm not; that's simply being insulting to no purpose.
And why bother in the first place? I suggest that it should be the actions and policies which ought to be the focus of the concern, not the beliefs.
Actually, it's the people who argue that there is no problem — no real or necessary conflict between science and religion — who impress me with their intellectual unsophistication. Otherwise intelligent and level-headed people can go completely bonkers when this question comes up, which I suppose is testimony to that amazing human ability: letting the conclusion we want determine the argument we'll make.
Both Shermer and Gould have argued that science has no quarrel with a human activity they call "religion", an activity which hardly resembles the religion followed by any numerically or politically significant group of people, anywhere. Quick! Name me a religion which stays on its side of the NOMA division.
Reconstructionist Judaism? The original teachings of the first Sikh, Guru Nanak?
When a Reconstructionist Jew becomes Pope, give me a call. Maybe he can get the modern-day Sikhs to lighten up a little, too.
Francis Collins is even worse. He says about human morality almost exactly what Michael Behe says about the bacterial flagellum, and in the process he shrugs off not just the findings of science but also the progress of philosophy. I'm not a rabid devotee of Hume, but hey, he did do a number on the watchmaker argument.
And, of course, Avalos has been arguing that theology itself is part of the problem. People might well take the Bible a little less seriously if they knew how thoroughly barbaric its passages can become — and one reason they don't know is because translations have been neutering the offensive parts and smoothing over the contradictions since King James' day. "Biblical studies" themselves are at fault, and this includes the translation industry, slapdash methods employed in "Biblical archaeology" and the highfalutin realm of theology itself.
I've looked, but I haven't found any critique of Dawkins which has made me change my initial impression of the Courtier's Reply:
"The beliefs are irrelevant and a distraction."
So do you think that combating homophobia is "irrelevant and a distraction" from debates around gay rights issues (e.g., gay marriage)? Just curious.
"It reminds me of Republicans always giving Democrats advice for their own good, lest the Democrats suffer an electoral catastrophe, which the Republicans are so concerned about."
It's called "concern trolling", and that's what all this "framing" shit boils down to.
I didn't say that either. You seem to be determined to twist my words and put your own spin on them.
But having said that, I would agree that action in favour of gay rights issues is much more useful and substantive than ranting about homophobia.
"I didn't say that either. You seem to be determined to twist my words and put your own spin on them."
You've misplaced my "determination" entirely. What I have just conducted is called "analogical reasoning" in the form of what they call a "reductio ad absurdum". You seem to think that undermining cultural attitudes that perpetuate social ills is "irrelevant and a distraction". I took this logic to it's proper (and ridiculous) conclusion.
And if the beliefs are that the bad effects are not, in fact, bad at all?
New atheist. Sounds like Bertrand Russel, an old atheist if ever there was one. Heard it all before in my pre-faith days.
It seems that there is confusion between terms like theology, religion and faith. All but one is measurable; unfortunately faith is not empirical.
In politics, one's faith must shape the values which inform every individual's agenda. But the introduction of religion is just a silly thing silly people cannot help doing.
Someone may believe that abortion is wrong and work on policy that way, but please, don't bring the Pope into the argument.
Oh, please. You sound like someone at a late-night freshman bull session: "Ha! Run rings around you logically ... pass me another beer."
My comments were specific; I drew no broad conclusions. Once more ... if you're concerned about bad public policy which you believe emanates from religious beliefs, attack the policy. Attacking the religious beliefs of those proposing the policy may be "intellectually" satisfying, but it is not productive. Why can't you attack the policy itself?
And the editor in me has to point out that "...it's proper (and ridiculous) conclusion" should be "...its proper (and ridiculous) conclusion". Elementary grammatical errors reinforce the freshman impression ...
"Oh, please. You sound like someone at a late-night freshman bull session: "Ha! Run rings around you logically ... pass me another beer.""
Yes, I know. It must be terrible to have your fallacious reasoning to thoroughly exposed by someone you are convinced is a "freshman". But really Scott, you've lost, and all the pedantry in the world can't salvage your argument (ditto for the lame spelling/grammar flame).
"My comments were specific; I drew no broad conclusions. Once more ... if you're concerned about bad public policy which you believe emanates from religious beliefs, attack the policy."
The only reason you can't draw broad conclusions is because your logic sucks. Cultural racism, misogyny and homophobia are inherently connected to issues surrounding racial, gender, and sexual orientation discrimination. You can't decouple undermining the former from the latter. The same thing goes for the attitudes behind the various stupid policies influenced by religion.
Those interested might find the text...The Pagan Christ...by Tom Harpur an interesting read.
Tom Harpur "is a columnist for the Toronto Star, Rhodes scholar, and former Anglican priest and professor of Greek and New Testament at the Unversity of Toronto (Ontario-Canada..."
"Harpur digs deep into the origins of Christianity. What he has discovered will change the way we think about religion."
"Long before the advent of Jesus Christ, the Egyptians and other peoples believed in the coming of a messiah, a madonna and her child, a virgin birth, and the incarnation of the spirit of the flesh. The early Christian church accepted these ancient truths as the very tenets of Christianity, but disavowed their origins. What began as a universal belief system based on myth and allegory became instead a ritualistic institution headed by ultraconservative literalists."
Tom DVM: "Those interested might find the text...The Pagan Christ...by Tom Harpur an interesting read."
Ahem: http://hnn.us/articles/6641.html
And now for something completely different ...
Ok, Tyler DiPietro mostly beat me to it, but I'll add in my own $0.02:
Scott Belyea: "if you're concerned about bad public policy which you believe emanates from religious beliefs, attack the policy. Attacking the religious beliefs of those proposing the policy may be "intellectually" satisfying, but it is not productive. Why can't you attack the policy itself?"
Let's rephrase that somewhat:
"if you're concerned about bad public policy which you believe emanates from [certain] beliefs, attack the policy. Attacking the [..] beliefs of those proposing the policy may be "intellectually" satisfying, but it is not productive. Why can't you attack the policy itself?"
If certain beliefs are at the root of the bad policy, it may be wise to attack the root of the problem. Of course, if attacking the full root of the problem is a more uncertain task that takes far more time and effort than attacking the immediate problem of the bad policy, it may be wiser to attack the policy instead, or to do a two-pronged approach where one's short-term goal is to attack the policy and the long-term goal is to discredit the underlying beliefs. The tricks are to make those goals not conflict and make the long-term effort succeed, and the New Atheists haven't done that good a job of either of those things. Dawkins' nonsense about appeasers has hampered the former goal, and as for the latter, the strategy of Dawkins et al. is about the same as that of Robert Ingersoll, a mix of soaring rhetoric and sloppiness. One may note that Ingersoll left no lasting dent in the country's religiosity, though he was popular for a time.
My problem with that reasoning, J.J., is that the issues influenced by religion can't really be segregated at all, even in your proposed "two-prong approach". The way the debates usually go about embryonic stem cell research is a perfect illustration of this.
ESCR Proponent: Stem cell research is one of the promising biomed research areas out there today, with the potential to provide therapies for previously fatal degenerative diseases. It should not be banned or unnecessarily constricted by funding regulation.
ESCR Opponent: But you're killing innocent human life, the end doesn't justify the means.
You have two options at that point, you can question the theological assumptions or you can accept their premise, at which point you are arguing that killing "innocent human life" is indeed justified in service to the progress of science. The same thing goes, more or less, for debates around evolutionary biology and teaching creationism.
Okay, the idea behind my above comment was executed somewhat poorly. So let me rephrase it all.
I don't think you can segregate the "bad effects" of policies from the "beliefs behind them" for the simple reason that they aren't separated on any level. In fact, as an above poster noted, those with the beliefs forming the substrate of the policies don't think the "bad" effects are "bad" at all, primarily because they hold those beliefs in the first place.
Or to put it another way, we're not only dealing the "root" of a problem. We're dealing with something that root and branch forms a problem in and of itself. People who want creationism taught aren't likely to be convinced by arguments that religion shouldn't be taught in science classes if they are convinced that creationism is true, or that religion should trump science no matter what the evidence. The same thing goes for ESCR, where no matter what you have to deal with the theological assumption that colonies of undifferentiated cells have "souls" and are "made in the image of god".
The argument that an in depth knowledge of theology is required to refute theology is a wonderfully weak argument and I laugh and cringe each time I hear it. Which is pitifully often. The very fact that most of the "ranters" either grew up in a religious household or knee deep in religious culture gives them by default the same amount of knowledge as those who accept it. For those who have read any of their books it's obvious that even the most basic dismantling they undertake in their books shows more indepth knowledge of religion than than 99 precent of most believers.
After that, the accusation that these "New Atheists" are simply shooting themselves in the foot with their writing, is to make a bold assumption. I speak with the same vigor as most of them and I have never once even considered trying to convince the "dyed in the wool faith heads" as Dawkins has put it, that they're wrong. As Carol Tarvis has said, they've got too much invested to ever turn about on nothing more than dismissive writtings. Yet even she assumes that the goal is to convince the farthest gone instead of those who may be unsure and have never heard a strong argument for non-belief. It's those who are waffling, and undecided who can be (and often are) effected by no-nonsense critiques of religion. Not to mention it takes loud voices (as republicans, feminists, etc. have proven) on the edges to move the center closer to their side. It's a historically supported position and it's doing wonderfully to get the message out and people talking like they haven't been in decades.
This is all really quite simple logic and these same questions are brought up and answered again and again. For the love of the FSM, can't we move onto real critiques?
Agree generally ... would still suggest that what needs discrediting is the policy. The underlying reasons why the policy was proposed are just not relevant.
The underlying reasons may help me understand my opponent, but my goal is to discredit the proposed policy. If I can do that, I've won. If I thrash my opponent but the policy stands, I've lost.
That has been my only point.
Ah, yes ... the old "yell loudly and proclaim victory" ploy. I'm certainly impressed, Tyler.
And the grammar point wasn't a flame ... it was an attempt to help you improve yourself!
OK, OK ... that was a cheap shot. But we disagree to the extent that I don't see any point in continuing.
My wife and I are both believers. We read "The God Delusion". We found a lot to recommend it. We also found Dawkins pedantic and he seemed to need to settle some old scores with past critics. Part of his work was a little unseemly.
The theory that there is a God has been controversial for a very long time. Doubters are in good company with Mother Teresa. I have had my moments when a close young friend died a horrible death.
I don't believe that faith must mean an unquestioning acceptance of someone else's vision of God. I do know that there are physical laws to this universe that have not yet been dreamt of by our greatest scientific minds. To imagine that somehow we already know all there is to know about our universe is arrogant and silly.
I spoke with an atheist who defended atheism by stating that all the physical laws of the universe are now known and that there is no known evidence for a God. Therefor there is no God. If knowing everything about the universe is the best argument for atheism, you have really lost me.
Dawkins is right about some important issues. Religious institutions should not receive any special treatment because they represent religion. And, faith should never be above questioning.
decrepitoldfool said: "The common thread among believers is the desire to believe. Understand that desire and you'll have something on which to build effective communications.
We're pretty much pounding on the wall when we ought to be looking for the door."
I believe you are correct about understanding the desire to believe, and I think I understand that desire - I felt it strongly for most of my life. It was born out of INDOCTRINATION, pure and simple. Had I not been pressured to believe and fed a bunch of lies as truth, I would not have felt that great and desperate desire.
I was made to feel that applying scientific process and my critical thinking abilities were *evils* which undermined TRUTH (ironic, huh?). Fear was a major player in faith - Fear of not believing (you'd go straight to hell), of seeking evidence (straight to hell), of questioning God (basphemous! straight to hell), of not *really, really* loving Him above all others (straight to hell), etc... Fear paralyzes reason.
So, when I consider my indoctrination, I realize that we disagree on this: I think the best way to combat this desire/indoctrination IS to pound - to pound on the walls until we CREATE doors called "critical thinking" and "logical thought" to help lead folks to REASON. We need to SHOUT the truth loud and proud, repeatedly and consistently, concerning the embarrassing lack of evidence in their dogmatic beliefs/faith (just for those who miss the point that FAITH by definition means to believe in something WITHOUT proof).
I'm with PZ, the Reveres, Dawkins, Hitchens and others who understand the need to proudly and nonapologetically pronounce the stories of the faithful as fairy tales. Can anyone prove they aren't fairy tales? Well then, calling them so is just logical. If that's aggressive and obnoxious for the faithful to hear, then they need to learn to "do unto others" - being that they have no problem simply stating that I will go to hell if I don't accept Jesus as my personal Lord and Savior...
Tyler DiPietro: "People who want creationism taught aren't likely to be convinced by arguments that religion shouldn't be taught in science classes if they are convinced that creationism is true"
When I was thinking of the root cause of creationism in schools, I had in mind Jason Rosenhouse's recent response to Mooney, "Polling Data on Science and Religion", where he identifies religion as the root cause of creationism. One can attack creationism either by attempting to root out its underlying motivation, or one can convince Christians that creationism is false but that they can go the route of theistic evolution. The latter doesn't get to the root of the problem but deals with the short-term difficulty.
Damn. That's very consistent with the Christianity I encountered in Tennessee & N. Carolina, and which underlies the religious right today. (and there's plenty of it around here in Illinois too) Oy, vey... what a nasty bunch.
There is at least one other common reason that people believe. Some people are just inherently OK people and they attend churches that match their personality. I don't think they really believe in hell. Or if they do, only very bad people like dictators and Enron executives would go there. I think their religion just gives them an identity and community.
I know two congregations like that and they don't spend their time preaching about hell, combatting evolution in schools, or protesting abortion. They do spend time making school kits for children in Zimbabwe or loading up a flatbed and heading down to New Orleans to fix roofs. Or in some cases, runing a recycling drive. It doesn't seem to bother them at all that I am an ex-Christian, an atheist.
But since these churches aren't vying for political power, their voices are sort of drowned out by the louder, politically-driven superchurches of which we have several in this area.
Are they providing cover for fundamentalists? Probably, as the fundies skulk about within the mantle of respectability they create. But some of them recognize the problem and are members of Americans United For Separation Of Church And State (whose director is a United Church Of Christ minister). That's something to build on.
You can't lead people by pounding on them. A few (who would have eventually figured it out on their own) will come along, but most will plant their feet on the culturally default position and harden their defences. It's just human nature.
For what it's worth I think we should recognize that there are different kinds of Christians, and focus our harshest criticism on the harshest Christians. The rest, on issues of public policy, could be our natural allies. They know that religious involvement in government usually results in governmental involvement in religion. And they appear to share a lot of other values with us.
Oddly enough, 13711 is prime.
This "framing" debate has its silly aspects. We're not all talking about the same thing.
Mooney & Nisbet and Belyea argue that advocating atheism doesn't help promote the public policies we favor. This may well be true, at least in the near term.
Dawkins & Myers and the rest are helping to provide a public space for godlessness, which we will need to bring the knowledge and acceptance of science in America up to the levels enjoyed by other developed societies.
I'd like to get back to the faith of our founding fathers. Franklin, at best a sort of Unitarian, tried to institute a daily prayer at the Constitutional Convention, and no one would second his motion.
Michael
I spoke with an atheist who defended atheism by stating that all the physical laws of the universe are now known and that there is no known evidence for a God.
I doubt anybody here believes the first part of this (I'm absolutely sure no scientist does), but almost everybody here believes the second. Actually, I would take issue with the word "known", what does it really mean?
It make make sense, however, to say that we now have understanding of enough to make the old myths look pretty silly.
oops
Should read
It might make sense ...
And why bother in the first place? I suggest that it should be the actions and policies which ought to be the focus of the concern, not the beliefs.
Oh please! It is all make believe!
Reason,
Most of the old myths do look silly from our where we are now with scientific knowledge. These old myths were told by people full of normal prejudice and self serving motives.
I cannot dismiss the God theory because of these old myths. My wife and I of 40 years have gone through a learning journey that took us from atheism to a firm belief that we are not just part of an accidental universe and that what we do is just a bunch of sound and fury that means nothing.
Each of us has our own journey and we make our own discoveries. Trying to convince someone else that there is a God, seems like an act of arrogance. How would I be privy to the secrets of the universe?
I do know that our faith has made our lives and relationship better. I worked for many years for a doctor who was an atheist. He found my faith to be "quaint". He was and is a good man who I expect to see in the next life. My experience tells me that faith or lack of it has no effect upon the moral conduct of an individual.
Reason,
Most of the old myths do look silly from our where we are now with scientific knowledge. These old myths were told by people full of normal prejudice and self serving motives.
I cannot dismiss the God theory because of these old myths. My wife and I of 40 years have gone through a learning journey that took us from atheism to a firm belief that we are not just part of an accidental universe and that what we do is just a bunch of sound and fury that means nothing.
Each of us has our own journey and we make our own discoveries. Trying to convince someone else that there is a God, seems like an act of arrogance. How would I be privy to the secrets of the universe?
I do know that our faith has made our lives and relationship better. I worked for many years for a doctor who was an atheist. He found my faith to be "quaint". He was and is a good man who I expect to see in the next life. My experience tells me that faith or lack of it has no effect upon the moral conduct of an individual.
Scott, I agree with you: test the idea or policy, rather than attack the person. Sometimes the ad hominem is in the eye of the beholder.
Michael, I disagree with your idea "that faith or a lack of it has no effect on the moral conduct of an individual."
First, I don't believe that any thinking human can survive without living by faith. The vigilance and checking of not having faith in a core set of values would at least appear to be insanity, if it did not lead to insanity.
What's to recommend the company of non-believers to the believers? The pejorative, "fundies," with the self-conceit of calling themselves "Brights"? The recently oft repeated claim that believers are guilty of child abuse for training their children in religion or the lumping all believers as one homogenous group? The colloquialisms that once would have been called "profanity" or "cussing"?
It can't be happiness. Dawkins(The God Delusion) and Harris (Letter to a Christian Nation) appear angrier than Jonathan Edward's angry God. Watch the first morning's videos of last November's "Beyond Belief" symposium at the Salk Institute. Harris, especially, seems to suck all the joy and camaraderie out of the room the second he steps to the podium. Worse than any "fire and brimstone" preacher I ever heard.
One thing I'm sure of: the anti-believers are more likely to use language that is "profane," "filthy" or "cussing."
The scientific method is a gift from Christianity. God does not like to be tempted but challenges his people to test him. If you have a god that cannot be tested, you have the wrong god. There is about one promise per page in the Word of God.
As a simple outline, First, you need a high priest. Second this high priest has to interceed with God on your behalf. Jesus created a Roman tool and an Israili tool and when the time was right, he used these tools to kill himself. He carried his own blood to the mercy seat in heaven and satisfied God's justice to the human race. Now you can bring your sacrifice to the (in Jewish temple format) Alter (salvation - Jesus), then go to the Laver to wash the sin of daily life off. Going into the holy place, stop at the table of shew bread and eat the Word of God (Jesus - through the Holy Sprit), pass by the Gold Candelstick and let the Holy Sprit shine His light on your soul, next, at the Table of Incence lift up holy prayer to God through the Holy Sprit. Now go in and meet with God directly.
The rest is good stuff that teaches how to be more effective on all levels of our life.
Torange: "There is about one promise per page in the Word of God."
Ok, then, show us one of those promises and then show us how that promise pans out.
This is an example of how side-issues can distract from much more important discussions. Some people - mostly hell-believing* Christians - are raised to believe that certain words are a moral issue, and imbue them with awful power. But words have no more power than we give them and some other people - mostly secular people and non-hell-believing Christians - use 'profanity' as a casual spice in their language without any of the ill intent attributed by the hell-believers. As George Carlin says; "There are no bad words. There bad people, bad intentions."
It boils down to taste. MrsDoF and I carry hot sauce in our car because restaurants seldom have anything spicy enough. Others prefer milder fare. But what matters is the nutrients in the food, not the spices on top.
Verbal communication is like that. What matters is the primary content, not the spices. And yet the hell-believers often have difficulty seeing past the deadly 7 words. Consequently I seldom use 'profanity' online. I hate to see what is essentially a stylistic issue make an insurmountable barrier to communication with the hell-believers.
It's a personal choice everyone makes. I've noticed that hell-believer objections to 'filthy language' are the subject of much derision from some secularists. I feel that's a pretty silly thing to get hung up on either way. I reckon I could either rehabilitate the 'F-' word or engage people on more important issues.
* Note: I am not using 'hell-believers' as a pejorative, only as a way to distinguish two camps of Christianity as I understand them.
DoF, how do you get someone's attention if you "pepper" your language with words meant to shock? When *I* cuss, people notice and they know I'm mad!
The reason I first came to ScienceBlogs was to read the latest community chatter on science, research and ethics. Since only a couple of believers own blogs on this site, I end up reading the derision. They appear alternately angry and mocking and almost uniformly uncivil and anti-establishment as they refer to each other's blogs, without a clue that they are the establishment at ScienceBlogs.
Beverly: "First, I don't believe that any thinking human can survive without living by faith. The vigilance and checking of not having faith in a core set of values would at least appear to be insanity, if it did not lead to insanity."
I'm not sure how I am to understand this. If it is meant to say that you don't believe anyone can really be an atheist (because if they were sane, they'd have faith, by definition), I consider this shocking and offensive and would rather be cussed at. I don't know why you think hearing a cuss word is more offesnive than being told you are either insane or lhying or deceiving yourself, but I assure you for many of us it isn't more offensive.
I have a core set of values. It doesn't come from religion. If you have a core set of values, let me posit it doesn't come from religion either. You just think it does. It comes from other people with their own agendas who have incorporated those values into a marketing package they call religion. And you have bought the product.
Barbara,
I did not say that I know that faith or lack of it has no effect upon the moral conduct of an individual. I said that my experience in life with people tells me this.
Simply said, I have found that atheists and believers have the same propensity to commit evil acts and good ones. You may certainly disagree with my statement as being one of fact or not. However, I hope you don't mean to suggest that I am lying about my experiences with people.
I wish I could say that those who professed faith in God had a higher moral conduct than atheists. But, alas, I have not found this to be true. I want to believe that feeling God's presence in our life would make us all better people, but I have seen just as much evil conduct in those who profess faith as in those who profess lack of any faith.
I thought I was clear. Faith comes in lots of forms. It's vital to be able to assume that you know what's going to happen, what is happening, without constant hyper-vigilance about reality. You have to have faith in your memories, observations and conclusions or you'd never get out of the house in the morning.
Isn't it great that we can agree on the existence of "evil," and "truth" even if we can't agree on "faith" and the source of these values?
I haven't seen the same propensity to commit evil acts among believers and non-believers. It could be because of the way I was raised and old fashioned selection bias. However, I do know which group is more likely to think the other "quaint" and to bless or pray for them.
Michael
I cannot dismiss the God theory
Which God theory exactly? Your religion sounds to me somthing like the fuzzy deism that say Ben Franklin or Thomas Jefferson might recognise.
Me though - I don't believe in belief. Ideas are just ideas, they come and go, but I exist regardless. Meaning itself is a pretty fuzzy concept if you really think about it.
I think most athiests actually also have a connection to something larger - humanity. We are herd animals after all, and then there is the project of human culture, particularly the western culture of exploding knowledge. I feel safer with an athiest whose morality is based on an awareness of common humanity, than a believer who believes there is something whose priorities override humanity.
Beverly: Your use of Faith is a private language. If it means taking some things on trust or out of habit (I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow) then it is pretty meaningless for this discussion. Since some of the greatest evils in history have been perpretrated by people of (various) faiths, the evidence for many of us is contrary to your perceptions, but clearly we disagree. Your fiath has led you to be pollitically active and to work to mpose your values on others, which is your right in this society. but it is hardly something that stays out of my life. We don't know what most atheists believe (we don't have a doctrine to spread about most things) but I would guess more of them are "live and let live" types than are believers. The best I can say is that I suspect this is true, based on my experience.
Reason,
Our faith IS fuzzy. You are perceptive enough to notice. How could our faith in God be anything but fuzzy? We have very little if any hard evidence to go on. However we have both felt God's presence in our lives. We have both felt that presence while being close to death. I have seen what are called miracles by some of the faithful. I however, do not believe in miracles(the suspension of physical laws). I simply believe that what passes for miracles are just natural events that we do not understand. Lightning used to be a miracle.
We both pray using the only prayers we know, Catholic prayers. I don't believe God will mind what form our prayers take.
I used to work in cardiopulmonary surgery. When we lost a patient, prayer was the only thing that would get me up for the next case. Our chief surgeon was always given the hopeless cases. Maybe having people die in front of you on a regular basis promotes religious faith. I don't know.
Revere, we all engage in convincing others and even in trying to convince the evaluators of the future that our faith is the correct one. And it appears that the editors/owners of ScienceBlogs only allow non-believers to preach on their blogs.
Seriously, "Since some of the greatest evils in history have been perpretrated by people of (various) faiths," is old and trite. And a mantra of the faith of the evangelical anti-religion atheists (and the anti-establishment), a la Dawkins/Harris, et al.
The greatest evils - the greatest harm to the greatest number - have been done by those denying and actively suppressing *religious* faith, along with higher education and scientific knowledge, but demonstrating their faith in power, killing the enemy and moving the crops a few feet north each year. Stalin, Pol Pot, the Communist Chinese have out done their predecessors and contemporaries.
BTW, have you watched those videos at "Beyond Belief"? That's one of the most faithful, religious bunches I've seen. Especially after Harris preaches fire and brimstone to them.
Beverly: Trite doesn't mean wrong. It is triet only because it is a truism we all (or pretty much all) all accept. As regards ScienceBlogs, you might try reading them more widely. There are many believers in Sb and they have debated each other publicly and privately. But it is true that on average scientists are less religious than non scientists. I think that says something about both science and religion. On the other hand, I don't see a lot of atheists on the religious blogs. Makes sense, right?
It doesn't make sense that science equals atheist or that science doesn't equal believer. And science is definitely not synonymous with "progressive," although the right wing viewpoint is rare around here, and even more rare among the science.blogs/____whatever.
There's much more heterogeneity in the community. It's another selection bias, similar to the NAS nominations of like-minded and my finding Baptists everywhere.
Beverly: Makes sense to me and in fact it is the case, for whatever reason (whether it makes sense or not). Science is not the same as progressive, I agree. They are orthogonal to each other. I happen to be progressive, godless and a scientist and the co-occurence of the last two is higher than in the general population, at least as far as the evidence goes. You can make of it what you will. But as you say . . ., whatever.
Michael, Beverly Nuckols. Enjoy what you're writing here, some very good points. Grateful to see other's take up the debate.
"We are herd animals after all" It all depends on what one embraces. In my eye "herd" doesn't apply to everyone.
Science doesn't necessarily entail atheism, any more than it necessarily entails the theory of relativity or quantum mechanics - it's just where an honest implementation of the scientific method takes us.
"But if I say the rules of chess shouldn't govern my life, am I out of bounds because I'm not a chess master?"
No. But if you then go on to call chess players fools for following the rules of chess, then you are getting close. When you go on to attempt to explain why the rules of chess don't make any sense... *after* admitting you have never studied them... then you are being an arrogant sort.
Prime numbers: I can't believe no-one's corrected this.
Large prime numbers are easy to find. Modern techniques used in cryptography will find primes hundreds of digits long in fractions of a second. Much larger primes are known - especially Mersenne primes.
Instead, if you find yourself in conversation with God or any other being with undreamt-of computing capacity, ask for one of the factors from the largest RSA challenge:
http://www.rsa.com/rsalabs/node.asp?id=2093
and win the substantial attached prize.
@Paul Crowley
yes i agreee u. I can't believe no-one's corrected this too.
thanks
Michael, K, Beverly, Lea, revere and everyone:
In a new era of the convergence of religion and science, there is certainly developing a new herd which remains as the creative minority. They are the seeker, facilitator of new civilization; in fact, they are living in the altar of graceful and vibrant life style. And they are striving to be in the right side of history as leaders. They maybe are not economical/ political/ social high status, but definitely they possess individuality, commitment, engagement in the situation given to them.
You experience inspiring and loving when you approach them.
This paradox of life may be interpreted by Albert Einstein saying 'a legitimate conflict between science and religion cannot exist. . . . Science without religion is lame, a religion without science is blind.'
This post also serves as response to 'Creating a dialog between atheists and believers might be a better idea.' Posted by: Michael | November 25, 2007 3:58 PM
Since I live in Thailand, the US president elections and their religious viewpoints seem very far to me, nevertheless the dialogues also reflect a kind of spiritual reality which encompasses all dimensions of human civilizations. I think that it is more proper for me to post here.
thanks