Atheists throw down the gauntlet

quote:

---

Here on the first days of the year of our lord 2007 it seems awkward to talk about a Godless world, but the fact is that in the waning months of 2006, a kind of militant atheism was making itself felt across the land.

There were two best-selling books declaring belief in God to be a kind of mass delusion, and a harmful mass delusion at that, occasioning a vigorous and often angry response from many people who believe the repeated announcement of the death of God to be wrong, spiritually deaf and dangerous.

---

a misguided crusade, I think, which net net will increase curiosity about religion at a time when the rise of Islam's visibility in the West is also prompting awareness of religion and cultural identity

final word:
... there is a market for militant atheism, but the market for religious belief is bigger

.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Poetry, love, romance, and a sense of wonder are human qualities that give rise to learning and science and continue on in spite of the religious strait jackets imposed on far too many.

You say there is a greater market for religion. I say you are wrong. People turn to religion for certainty and mostly they are rewarded with chaos and hate.

in Canada, religion generally means your local neighbourhood United Church of Canada or Reform synagogue, hardly hotbeds of violent rhetoric and extremists,
more likely home of Tommy Douglas or David Lewis voters

as long as religion = fundamentalism for the Dawkins crowd, I predict this movement will hit the goalposts repeatedly with the broader general public

.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

I will just focus on my synagogue which is Conservative.

Historically in Conservative Judaism women did not wear a tallit, tefillin or were counted as part of a minyan.

the COnservative movement has modenized and at my Conservative synagogue all has changed. Women wear talit, lain tefillin and yes are counted as part of a minyan.

So to group all religion together stating that they do not change, can not be modernized is simply false.

While we must keep our eyes open against the fundies no matter what religion they come from we must also recognize that not all religions or religious people are fundies.

To group all together is to do a great disservice to those who have chosen a path that includes belief in a God etc.

ETA: recently my family has gone through a couple of tragedies and deaths. One thing that has kept me going was my belief in God and my knowledge that my relatives were reunited together.

I have never considered myself a fundy before.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: johnpauljones ]

So too, does our health care system. At a certain point religious zeal is clearly a psychological disorder.

Remember that odd cult that committed mass suicide because they believed a mother ship hiding behind a comet was going to take them up? There was universal agreement at the time that they were nuttier than fruitcakes.

BUT, thier belief had as much support as belief in the literal interpretation of creation, or that flying a jet liner into a skyscrapper will earn you a one way ticket to paradise.

quote:

---

Originally posted by johnpauljones:

the COnservative movement has modenized and at my Conservative synagogue all has changed. Women wear talit, lain tefillin and yes are counted as part of a minyan.

---

Sorry for chuckling when I read this, but before I read your punch line, I honestly thought you were going to say:

quote:

---

The Conservative movement has modernized and at my Conservative synagogue all has changed. Men no longer wear tallis, or lay t'fillin, nor do we go by the magic quorum of 10 Jews.

---

I guess there's more than one way to "modernize"!

Distrusted for being atheist is bad enough, but being killed for being atheist?

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: ouro ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
So you can't say "lain t'fillin" (which sounds a bit like "lehn Torah"). It's either "lay t'fillin" or "laig t'fillin".

---

quote:

---

well, FM, we are obviously talking about 2 different worlds: I don't equate religion with fundamentalism, nor does the cultural mainstream

---

But you don't speak for the cultural mainstream, Geneva. Everyone here knows I do.

quote:

---

in Canada, religion generally means your local neighbourhood United Church of Canada or Reform synagogue, hardly hotbeds of violent rhetoric and extremists,
more likely home of Tommy Douglas or David Lewis voters

---

quote:

---

as long as religion = fundamentalism

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Frustrated Mess:

Geneva wrote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

in Canada, religion generally means your local neighbourhood United Church of Canada or Reform synagogue, hardly hotbeds of violent rhetoric and extremists,
more likely home of Tommy Douglas or David Lewis voters

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is what religion once meant. But if you put down your Margaret Wente column for just five minutes and visited those churches, you would notice the declining pools of grey. That is because those shining examples of liberal Christianity are on the decline while angry pools of narrow minded bigots who call themselves Christians are on the rise. The same is true for all the major religions.

---

In a world context (or an American one) I'd agree with you. However, in the Canadian context, I believe Geneva is correct. If you look at the statistics, reactionary and bigoted churches such as the evangelicals or Catholic Church are experience a massive exodus of young people, who attended with their parents as children. I know several who have followed this course, and wound up joining the United Church. Some are LGBT's who were disgusted with the hatred and bigotry expoused in the Churches they were brought up in, but did not want to abandon religion all together. For young people today, the dogmatism, bigotry, and hatred of backwards Churches is a non-starter. Progressive churches such as the UCC are the only ones with the opportunity to gain members from large parts of younger Canadians because they have a message that resonates with tolerant, progressive minded people who don't want to spend 60 minutes every Sunday morning listening to some demagogue preaching hatred and bigotry.

For the churches that refuse to follow the path of progress and grow with society, they will slowly disappear all together over the next few decades as their membership dies off, and whose children want nothing to do with hatred and extremism.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Kevin_Laddle ]

quote:

---

The three next largest Protestant denominations, each more than 600,000 strong, have also suffered significant decline in membership. Inclusion of the nation's nearly two million Presbyterians, Lutherans and Baptists within the ranks of mainline religion would not, therefore, improve its beleaguered condition, especially when low Presbyterian and Lutheran activity rates (18% and 20% respectively) are taken into account (Statistics Canada, 1993; Nock, 1993: 48; Bibby, 1993: 172).

Protestant prospects are not universally so gloomy, however. They appear brighter for the nearly two million Christians (7% of the Canadian population) who may be considered "conservatives" or "evangelicals" and whose churches are maintaining, or even increasing, their numerical strength (Statistics Canada, 1993).

---

"I have no desire to make it the foundation of government with the inherent persecution or discrimination of anyone who does not share my views."

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
Michelle - in your last post you suggested that you were against having parents let their children die. What if the children want to die? Will that be OK?

---

No. Children are not old enough to decide that, especially since it's likely that their nutcase parents will have influenced the decision.

quote:

---

You seem to think that it is wrong for government to operate and make decisions based on the existence of a God - and therefore ask for the opposite - a government that bases its decisions on the belief that God does not exist.

---

That is patent nonsense. Governments have no business in churches and churches have no business in government. Government legislate, or ought to, in the absence of any theocratic belief.

quote:

---

although the notion that talking about God = fundamentalism is wrong

---

It is wrong in your opinion. In my view, it is entirely justified if only because it is fundamentalists who are the rising religious crescendo seeking to erase the line between church and state.

quote:

---

Our job is to reclaim America for Christ, whatever the cost. As the vice regents of God, we are to exercise godly dominion and influence over our neighborhoods, our schools, our government, our literature and arts, our sports arenas, our entertainment media, our news media, our scientific endeavors -- in short, over every aspect and institution of human society.

-D. James Kennedy, Pastor of Coral Ridge Ministries

More

---

And why it may be true that the power of the religious right is concentrated south of the border, there is no denying it is also consolidating a power base within the Harpercrite regime here in Canada. Ask the so-called Green Tory about it.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Frustrated Mess ]

So children are not old enough to give up their lives, but they are old enough to give up their soul?

(Edited to add - whoops. I didn't think abut the fact that, as moderator, this would look like I just banned him. I didn't. That was just me saying I'm tired of debating with him. If I felt like sitting around all day debating right-wingers who think it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerant religious freaks who harm children, hate women, and want to shove their fundy views down society's throat, I'd go post on FD.)

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Michelle ]

You obviously have no idea what a troll is.

Now then, as to my point - you obviously want the laws to revolve around your beliefs - which is:

We shouldn't throw people's lives away for something that is make believe.

While Michelle of course speaks elequently for herself, I suspect she called you a troll for being intentionally vexing, and continually baiting with what have been clearly pointed out to be circular and really rather sophmoric arguments. I would call that trolling.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
Atheism is a religion the same as any other - it is a belief as to the existence or inexistence of deities.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
[to Michelle:]It's childish for you to call me a troll simply because you don't like my line of reasoning.

You obviously have no idea what a troll is.

---

BTW: It's childish of you to call atheism a religion, simply because you aren't an atheist.

You obviously have no idea what a religion is.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

If I felt like sitting around all day debating right-wingers who think it's intolerant to be intolerant of intolerant religious freaks who harm children, hate women, and want to shove their fundy views down society's throat, I'd go post on FD

---

Lovely, more childishness.
I don't agree with you. Therefore I must be a right-winger. Simply because someone does not have complete disdain for all religion and does not assume that they know with absolute certainty that God does not exist - does not make them a right winger.

But fuck, you're a moderator here, so do whatever you like.

Incidentally, I've never voted Conservative in my life and don't believe in God but you seem to be unable to imagine that someone might actually try and defend points of view that aren't their own.

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Palamedes ]

quote:

---

In any case, I put forward to you that any supposed major surge in bigoted/fundie Christian churches in Canada is for the most part alarmism.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
"Children are not old enough to decide that, especially since it's likely that their nutcase parents will have influenced the decision."

So children are not old enough to give up their lives, but they are old enough to give up their soul?

Is that what you believe? Why do you think that the life is more important than the soul? Or is it because you don't think that they will lose their soul?

---

quote:

---

Incidentally, I've never voted Conservative in my life and don't believe in God but you seem to be unable to imagine that someone might actually try and defend points of view that aren't their own.

---

Let me give you an example:

In Saudi Arabia, a building containing 15 schoolgirls was on fire.

They could have been rescued but the religous police deemed that since they were not properly attired, they could not come out of the building.

Consequently, they all died.

Now, here in North America, where the majority of people are not extremely devout Muslims, we view this as a tragedy brought on by foolishness.

Obviously, not everyone in Saudi Arabia thinks so because they do not have a culture of atheism as the presiding assumption in making their laws.

We in North America do. Our laws essentially allow religion, unless it gets in the way of another right, or could cause harm - regardless of any religious consequence.

Thus, in the case of a Jehovah's Witness, the government will not allow a child to lose its life, but will allow it to lose its soul(in the view of the JW's). This is because it is understood that religion is not real - and therefore it will be tolerated so long as there are no real sacrifices to be made for it.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Palamedes:
...and thus there are very few conflicts between what the religious believe, and what makes sense for modern day society.

---

They believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful invisible entity. They believe that they should worship this entity. They believe that this entity will reward them if they are "good" and punish them if they are "bad". They believe that this entity listens to their prayers and actually grants requests from time to time. They believe in heaven and hell. They believe in angels. They believe in miracles.

Those who accept the Nicene Creed, for example (one of the basic statements of belief in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant Churches), believe that this invisible entity created heaven and earth. They believe that Christ came back to life after being brutally killed. They believe their spirits will live forever after they die.

quote:

---

In any case, I put forward to you that any supposed major surge in bigoted/fundie Christian churches in Canada is for the most part alarmism.

---

Take a drive through a new sub-suburb. You know, the kind built around a "powercenter" of Walmarts and Mcdonalds, and there will inevitably be one or two brand new megachurchs. Calgary is lousy with them, and Edmonton, that liberal city, isn't too far behind (Red Deer is in an Ozark all its own).

[ 03 January 2007: Message edited by: Jingles ]

quote:

---

In the past year or two, a clutch of high-decibel books by scientists has ignited the passions of non-believers. Oxford evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins's The God Delusion, the best-known battle cry of unrepentant atheism, has been No. 1 on The Globe and Mail's non-fiction bestseller list for the past seven weeks. He joins past anti-deist bestsellers such as U.S. neurologist Sam Harris and Canadian cancer specialist Robert Buckman.

The books' popularity is partly due to their timing, which coincides with popular anxiety about the worldwide growth in both Islamic and Christian fundamentalism, which has arguably resulted in increased terrorism and war. There is also a backlash against evangelical campaigns opposing gay marriage, stem-cell research and teaching evolution. A range of people are frustrated by the religious influence in politics, including among Stephen Harper's Conservatives.

Yet while this renewed discussion has made non-religious people feel freer to proclaim their unbelief, they haven't exactly explained what to do with that knowledge. As American atheist Don Hirschberg once wrote, "Calling atheism a religion is like calling bald a hair colour."
....

The largest international secular-humanist organization, based in Amherst, N.Y., is the Centre for Inquiry, with branches across the U.S., South America, Africa, Europe and Asia. Its first Canadian centre is having its official opening in Ontario this weekend, with a CFI in Vancouver planned for later in the year.

---

best line:
one writer used to call Dawkins a "professional atheist", but now thinks he's just "an amateur" ...

"The most disappointing feature of 'The God Delusion,'" Orr wrote, "is Dawkins' failure to engage religious thought in any serious way. You will find no serious examination of Christian or Jewish theology" and "no attempt to follow philosophical debates about the nature of religious propositions."

Eagleton surmised that if "card-carrying rationalists like Dawkins" were asked "to pass judgment on phenomenology or the geopolitics of South Africa, they would no doubt bone up on the question as assiduously as they could." He continued, "When it comes to theology, however, any shoddy old travesty will pass muster."

.

[ 10 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

---

But apparently people who do not believe in holy ghosts need to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of "theology" in order to justify their non-belief.

quote:

---

Originally posted by babblerwannabe:
It's not a suprised they are all MALE characters huh?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Canadian atheists on the march: Read the whole article

---

quote:

---

...atheists may not be so well served by finding their current figurehead in the notoriously acerbic Dr. Dawkins.

A recent two-part episode of the satirical cartoon South Park paid tribute to his profile, but not his personality. One character explained the scientist's success this way: "He learned that using logic and reason isn't enough -- you have to be a dick to everyone who doesn't think like you."

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Funny, millions of deluded individuals manage to believe in God without knowing anything about "theology". Nobody criticizes them for that.

But apparently people who do not believe in holy ghosts need to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of "theology" in order to justify their non-belief.

Go figure.

---

OK, I will "go figure":

Individuals are just that, they have every right to their private individual views. Not believing in God and/or being indifferent to the issue is a dime-a-dozen viewpoint these days. No need to reply or criticize.

If your Uncle Floyd presses you about your personal religious beliefs over Thanksgiving dinner, it is usually considered gauche, out of place, whatever, since those views are not publicly discussed by many people.

By contrast, when a prominent professor and public figure, one who is moreover a veteran polemicist -- and whose Oxford job title requires him to engage the broader public with science-related issues -- publishes a topical book, you have every right to debate /challenge its method and conclusions.

A polemicist is expected to:

- propose solid arguments;
- offer sustained reasoning in support of his thesis;
and generally:
- show an unusually sound grasp of the subject matter, even by comparison to his specialist readers.

The critics quoted in the article above, many of whom have published records as religious skeptics, found that Richard Dawkins fell way short on most counts. They concluded he did not deliver the convincing and structured arguments he promised. In short, no "knock-out punch" for theism.

So, they panned his book -- just as they would any book they judged poorly reasoned or superficial on, say, climate change or foreign policy or economic trends.

There, I went and figured: there is no double standard.
Just a single standard: the arguments in a book have to be solid and convincing.

Otherwise, the author gets hammered. QED.

.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

It seems to me that studying theology would, at most, give a person empathy for understanding why many individuals and cultures have a belief in a God. But, I can't see how studying theology can answer a question that is not susceptible to rational proof (i.e., does God exist?).

It also strikes me that the best criticism of Dawkins is that he is trying to provie a negative (i.e., God does not exist). I don't know that that is possible.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Sven ]

as to my own views, I am interested in all points of view about God and I would love to read a slam-dunk debunking of theology -- Marx is full of energy, Nietzsche of course is sensational -- but neither of these obviates the relentless human need for a sense to life; here we are in the 21st century with religion often the No.1 public discussion topic

there are millions of pages of discussions of the use /misuse /sense of theology, dating over 20 centuries, and it was of course the core and founding discipline of most Western universities, from the Sorbonne to Laval;

so read a resume of the views of , say, Augustine, Aquinas or Pascal, who would give way way better reasons for studying the ineffable and unprovable than I would ever venture

Pascal offers the advantage for today's sensibility of being a top-class A-rank scientific mind historically, so his theological reflections (Pens'ees) probably answer you best:
http://tinyurl.com/2fudaz

Blaise Pascal (pronounced [blez pɑskɑl]), (June 19, 1623–August 19, 1662) was a French mathematician, physicist, and religious philosopher. He was a child prodigy who was educated by his father. Pascal's earliest work was in the natural and applied sciences where he made important contributions to the construction of mechanical calculators, the study of fluids, and clarified the concepts of pressure and vacuum by generalizing the work of Evangelista Torricelli.

Pascal also wrote powerfully in defense of the scientific method.

He was a mathematician of the first order. Pascal helped create two major new areas of research. He wrote a significant treatise on the subject of projective geometry at the age of sixteen and corresponded with Pierre de Fermat from 1654 and later on probability theory, strongly influencing the development of modern economics and social science.

Following a mystical experience in late 1654, he abandoned his scientific work and devoted himself to philosophy and theology. His two most famous works date from this period: the Lettres provinciales and the Pensées.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Theology is more than just arguments for the belief in God. In fact, if it were, you could master theology in an afternoon, because the arguments are pretty thin.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
What do the religious believe, by the way?

They believe in an all-knowing, all-powerful invisible entity. They believe that they should worship this entity. They believe that this entity will reward them if they are "good" and punish them if they are "bad". They believe that this entity listens to their prayers and actually grants requests from time to time. They believe in heaven and hell. They believe in angels. They believe in miracles.

---

A strawman if I've ever seen one. Essentially you completely ignore anything but the most base, literalist and childish form of "belief". Never mind that there are subtler levels of meaning present even in the charicature of ideas you've chosen to represent "the religious". Any one of the key nouns you've mentioned can be taken on many different levels; literal, analogical, allegorical.

quote:

---

Those who accept the Nicene Creed, for example (one of the basic statements of belief in the Roman Catholic, Syrian Orthodox (Jacobite) Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Assyrian, Anglican, Lutheran, and most other Protestant Churches), believe that this invisible entity created heaven and earth. They believe that Christ came back to life after being brutally killed. They believe their spirits will live forever after they die.

---

The idea of a rebirth after self-sacrifice (Jesus wasn't just "killed", he offered himself up for the taking) is far more poignant than the literalist notion of a physical rebirth after a physical death. Again, as Dawkins does, you take only the outermost layer of the onion for the whole thing.

quote:

---

And you don't see any conflict between those sorts of beliefs and "what makes sense for modern day society"?

---

Not at all, although it all depends on what you mean. Eagleton's criticism stands as well for your position as for Dawkins'.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

M. Spector: Dawkins considers all the arguments for the belief in God and demolishes them. Read the book and see for yourself, instead of just relying on hostile critics.

---

That's always good advice. And Dawkins isn't the only one to read. Daniel Dennett, Canadian Kai Neilson, and many others have produced a wealth of material over the last few years.

quote:

---

M.Spector: Having demolished the underpinnings of theology, there's no need to do more. The edifice will collapse on its own.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
These theological "giants" all lived centuries ago. Thanks to science, we now know a lot more about the world than we did then. "Theology" has not advanced at all in the meantime.

Theology is more than just arguments for the belief in God. In fact, if it were, you could master theology in an afternoon, because the arguments are pretty thin.

Dawkins considers all the arguments for the belief in God and demolishes them. Read the book and see for yourself, instead of just relying on hostile critics. Having demolished the underpinnings of theology, there's no need to do more. The edifice will collapse on its own.

---

there seem to be 4-5 arguments/assertions here, each confusedly jockeying for a place:

- 1. "many top theologians lived long ago";
a non-argument, so did Galileo, Shakespeare, Da Vinci, Descartes: are they "invalid"? would 2+2=4 be more compelling if proven just 100 years ago, or 2000 or more years ago?

- 2. "science has advanced, theology has not";
the former excellent, the second again unproven and/or irrelevant;

- 3. "arguments for God are thin";
asserting the conclusion in the argument, invalid;

- 4. "Dawkins demolishes arguments for God";
see above, unproven;

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
These theological "giants" all lived centuries ago. Thanks to science, we now know a lot more about the world than we did then. "Theology" has not advanced at all in the meantime.

---

"New" and "better" are not - despite the best efforts of the marketing industry - synonyms.

quote:

---

Theology is more than just arguments for the belief in God. In fact, if it were, you could master theology in an afternoon, because the arguments are pretty thin.

---

As Heidegger would have it (I'm paraphrasing), the trouble with "modern, rationalist" views of the world is that they mistake "correct statements" for truth. The trouble with Dawkins' position is that it will always rely on "observable" phenomena, i.e. the outer appearance of things to us. Whether or not our perceptions of the world conform to its reality is certainly not a settled question. In short, what we see is not necessarily the whole picture. In fact, it probably isn't according to the best "science" on perception and cognition, not to mention the problems of observation at the sub-atomic and astronomic levels.

quote:

---

Dawkins considers all the arguments for the belief in God and demolishes them. Read the book and see for yourself, instead of just relying on hostile critics. Having demolished the underpinnings of theology, there's no need to do more. The edifice will collapse on its own.

---

Sounds more like a case of preaching to the choir with an extra helping of wishful thinking.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: B.L. Zeebub LLD ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Until the origin of religion is properly explained and understood, which neither Dawkins nor anyone else has accomplished, this "edifice" won't collapse any more than the state will "wither away".

---

ETA: And the point of my edifice metaphor, if I didn't make it clear, was that without a basis for believing in a god, there's no need for "theology" at all. I wasn't trying to say that religion was going to disappear any time soon.

Indeed, as long as there is a class society, with powerful interests seeking to suppress and confuse the masses, there will be powerful and well-funded religions, and plenty of misguided progressives ready to defend them.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
The trouble with Dawkins' position is that it will always rely on "observable" phenomena...

---

I'll take observable phenomena any day over the Invisible Pink Unicorn, thanks all the same.

quote:

---

"New" and "better" are not - despite the best efforts of the marketing industry - synonyms.

---

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

quote:

---

M. Spector: You don't think Dennett's Breaking the Spell goes a long way to doing just that?

---

It's a good contribution. I hope Dennett lives long enough to continue and advance this work. However, my point is just that I don't think it makes much sense to predict the demise of an institution, like religion, when its origin isn't fully understood. There's much to be done in the sociology of religion, the history of religion, etc.

quote:

---

M. Spector: ETA: And the point of my edifice metaphor, if I didn't make it clear, was that without a basis for believing in a god, there's no need for "theology" at all. I wasn't trying to say that religion was going to disappear any time soon.

---

OK - I missed this while typing my previous entry.

quote:

---

Indeed, as long as there is a class society, with powerful interests seeking to suppress and confuse the masses, there will be powerful and well-funded religions, and plenty of misguided progressives ready to defend them.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
Progressives should go where the people are and not only where we wish them to be.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
I don't know what your point is. I do know that there is obviously a woman's foot on the person who last went through that door.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Geneva:

- 2. "science has advanced, theology has not";
the former excellent, the second again unproven and/or irrelevant;

---

a) this statement ("science has advanced, theology has not"} is based in some pretty insular modernitst conceptions of the world. For instance "progress" is a term entirely reified in the empircist modernist framework, and so naturally, science when judged by its own standards, winc out over theology, since "progress" is no a notion of theological interest.

b) It is clearly evident that theology has changed substantially over the last 400 years. For instance, no one in the Catholic church seems that interested in arguing that the sun revolves around earth. But that is just an obvious example, there are for more subtle shifts in the paradigm, for instance the theology of athiesm has made an appearance.

For instance this argumentfor "faith-based" athiesm;

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:

But apparently people who do not believe in holy ghosts need to demonstrate a thorough knowledge of "theology" in order to justify their non-belief.

---

comes nearest to asserting the non-existance of god, through a theological device: faith.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vansterdam Kid:
But playing the "I'm more oppressed" card, is tacky at best.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
It is clearly evident that theology has changed substantially over the last 400 years. For instance, no one in the Catholic church seems that interested in arguing that the sun revolves around earth.

---

In fact, it was a total capitulation to science. Were it not for empirical scientific proof that the "theology" was wrong, the Catholic church and everybody else would to this day believe that the sun revolves around the earth once a day.

quote:

---

Michael Shermer: It turns out that the number-one reason people give for why they believe in God is a variation on the classic cosmological or design argument: The good design, natural beauty, perfection, and complexity of the world or universe compels us to think that it could not have come about without an intelligent designer. In other words, people say they believe in God because the evidence of their senses tells them so. Thus, comtrary to what most religions preach about the need and importance of faith, most people believe because of reason.

---

The quote is from Shermer's groundbreaking book, How We Believe: The Search for God in an Age of Science, p. xiv, 2000, W.H. Freeman & Co., NY. Shermer substantiates his claim with evidence from his large survey in his book. It is a most remarkable conclusion.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by N.Beltov:
[quoting Shermer]Thus, contrary to what most religions preach about the need and importance of faith, most people believe because of reason.

---

Intelligent design has been shown many times over to be a fallacious conclusion from observable facts, yet many people still cling to it even when presented with the truth.

In fact, there are millions of religious people who have been convinced, on a rational basis, by the arguments against ID, and who have as a result accepted the Darwinian explanations of natural selection, complexity, and design in nature, and yet still insist on clinging to their religious beliefs.

quote:

---

M. Spector:Shermer's assertion is easily disproved when you consider how religious belief is in most cases impervious to reason.

---

I can't resist the urge to suggest that you take your own advice [in regard to Dawkins] and have a look at Shermer's book. Appendix II lays out the survey, how it was collected, some of the mathematics of it, etc.

quote:

---

Shermer: ... we believe that the instrument we used to collect the data provides an accurate reflection of what Americans believe about God, some of the most important influencing variables on their belief, and why they believe.

---

Collecting data about religious beliefs has been very difficult. Dennett goes into this in his book. In the case of the Druze in Lebanon, for example, many of their most important religious beliefs are secret. Hard to collect data in that case.

That a majority of believers would choose to substantiate their belief in the way Shermer has shown is quite different from a primitive "I believe and that's that" approach.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

One possible interpretation of the poll is commonplace: that people will resort to rationalization when asked to justify beliefs that they hold on faith (and by faith I mean that they hold them because they want them to be true).

Or as Shermer says:

quote:

---

...Sulloway and I discovered that the number one reason people give for their belief in God is the good [!? - M.S.]design of the world. When asked why they think other people believe in God, however, the number one reason offered was emotional need and comfort, with the good design of the world dropping to sixth place. Further, we found that educated men who already believed in God were far more likely to give rational reasons for their belief than were educated women and uneducated believers.... One explanation for these results is that although in general education leads to a decrease in religious faith, for those people who are educated and still believe in God there appears to be a need to justify their beliefs with rational arguments.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Intelligent design has been shown many times over to be a fallacious conclusion from observable facts, yet many people still cling to it even when presented with the truth.

In fact, there are millions of religious people who have been convinced, on a rational basis, by the arguments against ID, and who have as a result accepted the Darwinian explanations of natural selection, complexity, and design in nature, and yet still insist on clinging to their religious beliefs.

---

But of course none of that impacts Islamic theology because it does not hold itself accountable to a strict creation theory. The Qu'ran for example, includes examples of advancing understandings of medical science, within its text. For many Muslims, proving Darwinian theory, or hypothesizing about the big bang, or atomic theory is completely irrelevant, as these are just further examples of gods genius at dealing out the cards.

I was told not to long ago by an emphatically devout Muslim that the Big Bang proved the existance of god. You will often see this stuff in their proslethyzing literature.

But you are saying that theology has made no advances, even in the face of the creation and popularization of a theologically world view, completely capable of absorbing any scientific develoment as an article of its canon?

Anyway. Anon.

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: Cueball ]

quote:

---

Pete Stark, a California Democrat, appears to be the first congressman in U.S. history to acknowledge that he doesn't believe in God. In a country in which 83% of the population thinks that the Bible is the literal or "inspired" word of the creator of the universe, this took political courage.
....
Let us hope that Stark's candor inspires others in our government to admit their doubts about God. Indeed, it is time we broke this spell en masse. Every one of the world's "great" religions utterly trivializes the immensity and beauty of the cosmos. Books like the Bible and the Koran get almost every significant fact about us and our world wrong. Every scientific domain - from cosmology to psychology to economics - has superseded and surpassed the wisdom of Scripture.

---

I could not access that old magazine; anybody help w. link ??

[ 20 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

Which is the better biological explanation for a belief in God — evolutionary adaptation or neurological accident? Is there something about the cognitive functioning of humans that makes us receptive to belief in a supernatural deity?

And if scientists are able to explain God, what then? Is explaining religion the same thing as explaining it away? Are the nonbelievers right, and is religion at its core an empty undertaking, a misdirection, a vestigial artifact of a primitive mind?

Or are the believers right, and does the fact that we have the mental capacities for discerning God suggest that it was God who put them there?

In short, are we hard-wired to believe in God? And if we are, how and why did that happen?

[ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

quote:

---

Christianity is Toronto's dominant religion, according to the 2001 census. The survey of religious affiliation did not ask whether respondents are active worshippers.

---

Roman Catholic 755,460
No religion 453,985
Anglican 150,215
United Church 131,825
other Christian 96,340
Greek Orthodox 54,165
Baptist 50,615
other Orthodox 45,530
other Protestant 39,360
Presbyterian 35,525
Pentecostal 30,610
Lutheran 24,665
Ukrainian Catholic 13,700
Adventist 13,515
Jehovah's Witnesses 10,400
Serbian Orthodox 5,170
Methodist 5,080
Salvation Army 4,320
Evangelical Missionary Church 3,080
Ukrainian Orthodox 2,925
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (Mormons) 2,720
Christian and Missionary Alliance 2,255
Non-denominational 1,250
Mennonite 1,240
Christian Reformed Church 1,120
Brethren in Christ 615
Hutterite 40
All Christian 1,481,740

Muslim 165,130
Hindu 118,765
Jewish 103,500
Buddhist 66,510
Sikh 22,565
Pagan 1,740
Aboriginal spirituality 650

********
For every three Christians, there's one "no religion".

here it is from Le Monde, not on the site anymore:

Si le catholicisme reste la religion la mieux établie dans l'Hexagone, 27,6 % des Français se déclarent athées

Article publié le 03 Mars 2007
Par Stéphanie Le Bars
Source : LE MONDE
Taille de l'article : 295 mots

Extrait : L'HEBDOMADAIRE La Vie dresse, dans son numéro du jeudi 1er mars, une cartographie départementale des croyances dans l'Hexagone. Sans surprise, le catholicisme demeure la seule religion à caractère national : 64 % des Français se déclarent catholiques.

Avec seulement 47 % de catholiques, le Val-de-Marne est le département le plus déchristianisé, tandis que la Moselle (81 %) reste le plus marqué par la religion dominante.

Selon les sondages étudiés par l'Ifop, les « sans religion » se répartissent aussi sur tout le territoire, avec une exception notable dans les départements de l'Est, notamment en Alsace-Lorraine, ainsi que dans le Tarn-et-Garonne et les Alpes de Haute-Provence.

.............................
I have to disagree with some of the interpretation above:

"sans religion" does not mean "athée", and more than secular means atheist; not the same thing at all

[ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: Geneva ]

The whole notion of the cooperative, rather than competitive element of groups seems to be ignored by the Darwinian Science community, since they probably feel they can prove - ha ha – the effects on, and the various contributions of, the individual member of the group when it comes to measurable criteria. Acts of selflessness that benefit the other within the group, or even the entire group are surely as worthy of study as the more sexy acts of aggression, violence, and so on. This seems like a pretty big deal to me. Then again, I am not a member of the Walmart Nation, so maybe the selfish gene that Dawkins proposes is more real than I should like to admit.

The human race seems to have been able to avoid self destruction all this time – that’s a whole 6,000 years give or take.
Surely cooperation is the key to this success. I’m not denying the incredible harm and destruction done in religion’s name, I am a Northern Irish protestant (lapsed) and I loathe the games played by the church and political players. But taking responsibility and trying out trust in various ways can lead to all sorts of unexpected benefits.

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Gimme that ol' time religion... it's good enough for me!

[ 11 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

---

For one of them "free inquiry" zealots, you do a hell of a job fighting arguments that others haven't made.

All I've done is point out the obvious problem with the fool's errand you and Dawkins are on. Does that mean I "believe"? Far from it, however, it doesn't change the fact that there can be no conclusive evidence for the question. The inability to deal with unanswerable questions coupled with the need to proselytize ones lack of conclusions is a fault all its own in my book.

quote:

---

Lumpyprole: Well that NYTimes article is pretty good.

---

Here are a few remarks about it.

quote:

---

Robin Marantz Henig: Today, the effort has gained momentum, as scientists search for an evolutionary explanation for why belief in God exists - not whether God exists, which is a matter for philosophers and theologians, but why the belief does.

---

A number of those that believe in some sort of monotheistic deity make use of the trick that they don't necessarily believe in God ... just that they believe in belief. They don't have to deal with the issues that atheists like Richard Dawkins raise. It's too much like work. So they shift the debate to "belief in belief". It's a sign that they're losing the battle, in my view. However, it's worth adding that what I have previously called Dawkins' "shotgun" approach has to be widened and deepened in the manner that researchers like Dennett have done ... in these shifting circunstances.

Henig outlines another debate among researchers:

quote:

---

These scholars tend to agree on one point: that religious belief is an outgrowth of brain architecture that evolved during early human history. What they disagree about is why a tendency to believe evolved, whether it was because belief itself was adaptive or because it was just an evolutionary byproduct, a mere consequence of some other adaptation in the evolution of the human brain.

---

He also regurgitates that misleading intellectual surrender, uttered even by someone who should know better like Stephen J. Gould, that science and religion have separate "magisteria" or mutually exclusive domains of investigation. However, I'm glad to report that the author also quotes Dennett:

quote:

---

Dennett: Even if Gould was right that there were two domains, what religion does and what science does, that doesn’t mean science can’t study what religion does. It just means science can’t do what religion does.

---

Says Henig: "The idea that religion can be studied as a natural phenomenon [this is the subtitle of Dennett's most recent work - N.Beltov] might seem to require an atheistic philosophy as a starting point. Not necessarily. Even some neo-atheists aren’t entirely opposed to religion. Sam Harris practices Buddhist-inspired meditation. Daniel Dennett holds an annual Christmas sing-along, complete with hymns and carols that are not only harmonically lush but explicitly pious."

I'll take 2 lumps of Dennett and one lump of Dawkins. Hold the fundamentalist cream.

quote:

---

Henig: What can be made of atheists, then?

---

A very good question. In fact, some of the theorists over at Internet Infidels even have a specific name for the argument that the existence of atheists is proof itself that God does not exist. It's an argument worthy of careful scrutiny and I recommend every atheist, agnostic or non-monotheist to have a look. Here is Henig's final paragraph:

quote:

---

This internal push and pull between the spiritual and the rational reflects what used to be called the "God of the gaps" view of religion. The presumption was that as science was able to answer more questions about the natural world, God would be invoked to answer fewer, and religion would eventually recede. Research about the evolution of religion suggests otherwise.

---

Henig is wrong here, I think. Why presume the results in advance?

quote:

---

Henig: No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what Atran calls the tragedy of human cognition.

---

The tragedy of cognition is no more than the tragedy of human existence in general. We all must find and make meaning in a finite existence. Such questions can't be reduced to simple survival and reproduction. Furthermore, there are many occassions in social life when the surrender of one's own life is the human thing to do; this is an indication of an unwillingness to abandon our humanness, humaneness, our non-negotiable spiritual values beyond belief in some primitive deity, and remain our human selves to the death. This is no surprise at all. Such self-sacrifice is often pointed to with overwhelming social approval and unstinting admiration.

quote:

---

Although he may be dying even his vestiges retain man's victorious efforts on the road to immortality .... He leaves behind him something unique that he creates through words, deeds, thoughts, even greetings, a handshake or only a silent smile.

Mikhail Prishvin

---

quote:

---

Lumpyprole: The whole notion of the cooperative, rather than competitive element of groups seems to be ignored by the Darwinian Science community ...

---

Check out Dennett's Freedom Evolves in which he examines cooperative elements.

[ 21 March 2007: Message edited by: N.Beltov ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
“I have absolutely no doubt...

---

[Cue Eric Idle]Say no more, say no more...

quote:

---

Originally posted by Blondin:
I don't think saying "I believe" or "I have no doubt" indicates blind faith. It's the verses that being with "I know and nothing will convince me otherwise" that indicate the truly faithful.

---

Where there is no doubt, there is no science.

quote:

---

In science, self-satisfaction is death. Personal self-satisfaction is the death of the scientist. Collective self-satisfaction is the death of the research. It is restlessness, anxiety, dissatisfaction, agony of mind that nourish science.

Jacques Monod

---

And from a Good Catholic:

quote:

---

Preserve in everything freedom of mind. Never spare a thought for what men may think, but always keep your mind so free inwardly that you could always do the opposite.

St. Ignatius Loyola

---

The real intellectual battle of our time is not against the hokey and childish beliefs of the superstitious and the blindly faithful as their errors are apparent enough. Rather, we face an onslaught of vain and dogmatic "scienticians" who have ironically found in scientific method a place to hang their banners, a mountain from which to proudly trumpet their superiority and to speak with the authority of On High. Priests of all kinds should be doubted. Those who come dressed in labcoats no less than those in collar and habit.

Having slayed "God" (or so they tell themselves and us) they would anoint themselves Masters of the Universe, the pinnacle of Evolution, the vanguard of a teleological progress ongoing for eons.

quote:

---

Originally posted by B.L. Zeebub LLD:
Where there is no doubt, there is no science.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by M. Spector:
Are you absolutely sure of that?

---

quote:

---

An atheist group leader says he is the victim of a religious hate crime.

Freethought Association of Canada president Justin Trottier said he was assaulted at Ryerson University earlier this week while he and a colleague were hanging posters for a coming lecture.

"Their motives were clearly premised on the fact that we were atheists [publicizing] an atheist event and that was seen as unacceptable to them," Mr. Trottier said in an interview yesterday.

"They mocked the nature of the event."

Mr. Trottier, 24, and his colleague were hanging posters Tuesday night announcing a lecture by Victor Stenger, author of God: The Failed Hypothesis, when they were approached by two men. The men asked for a copy of the poster, mumbled under their breath and tossed it to the ground. Mr. Trottier said he yelled after them, "You could have recycled that."

Fifteen minutes later, when Mr. Trottier and his colleague were in a more secluded area of the university, he said the two men reappeared and started a verbal argument. One of the men hit him in the face twice, and butted him on his face, causing his nose to bleed, Mr. Trottier said.

He said the two men looked like they were in their early 20s. He didn't know if they attended the university. "If the incident had been reversed and it had been an atheist that had physically assaulted a theist for postering for a theist event . . . that would easily be considered a hate crime -- and it frequently is. This is the exact reverse scenario," Mr. Trottier said.

"This assault should be taken just as seriously."

---

Stenger will be speaking on April 5 at the George Vari Engineering and Computing Centre, 245 Church St., in downtown Toronto, Room 103, Ryerson University, at 7:30 pm.

[ 31 March 2007: Message edited by: M. Spector ]