I couldn't get past the 4th or 5th paragraph of this article without baulking at the nonsense and unintended hilarity of the piece.

Christianity is "racist"?

Is he actually being serious? People make all kinds of ridiculous accusations about Christianity all the time, and people have criticised Christianity for everything you can think of, but I'd have to say I haven't heard that one before. That statement is beyond absurd. Christianity is the opposite of racist. Suggesting otherwise reduces the author's credibility beyond repair. If this guy wasn't grinding such an obvious ax in this article, I'd think he was literally making a joke for comedic effect (not that it'd actually be funny). Instead, his seriousness in making the comment means the joke's on him.

He also criticises Christianity for being guilty of being "religist". Ie: Christianity is guilty of saying that the teachings of Christianity are true, and other religions teachings aren't. Well, boo hoo.

It's an absolute indictment on our current culture that the inherent irrationality of such complaints aren't pointed out more often, and more forcefully. When it comes to any issues relating to religion, we now live in a world where it's unfashionable to argue that someone else is wrong- unless you're arguing that someone else is wrong for teaching that someone else is wrong. In that case, all the more power to you.

PS: After scrolling through the comments I'm disheartened that more people aren't criticising this piece of trash article. There hardly seems to be many critical comments at all! Admittedly, I was nitpicking on minor points of his in my above post, but I simply couldn't see the article through.

Oh..just one more thing.... The New Atheist movement is culturalist, sexist, elitist and intellectualist! Almost all of the champions of the New Atheist movement are highly educated white males- Dawkins, Harris, Stenger, Myers, Dennett, Hitchens etc!

Hi George.

>>could you please spell out for me what, apparently unprecedented, “events of Easter … inevitably erode the status that organized religion occupies in our social structures” and what “consequences” are they supposed to lead to?<<

First of all, I don't believe that I said they were "unprecedented". There have been many attempts by religious folk - as we clearly see in this thread - to bracket atheists with "other faiths", and dump on them via a litany of assumed crimes.

But the observation I did make on this occasion was the appalling timing of the attack on atheism, at a moment in history where one of the "mother churches" is under substantial scrutiny.

It may be that in some instances, attack is the best form of defence. Usually, however, that is confined to sporting arenas, rather than institutions that are being closely examined for a series of acts that appear inconsistent with their espoused values.

This "inconsistency" cuts to the very quick of the basis for religious observance. Note, I am separating this categorically from any belief in God, but focussing instead on the earthly messengers.

I used the Enlightenment as a kicking-off point because it is essentially where it became permissible to use reason and science alongside belief. On reflection though, I think a better parallel would be Martin Luther and the Reformation.

So, back to your question.

The "events" were the vocal attacks on atheists and atheism, from various pulpits. This at a time when the conduct of the church hierarchy was being closely examined, essentially for hypocrisy and deceit.

Luther's ninetyfive theses concentrated on such dubious activities as the purchasing of indulgencies and the use of "relics" to avoid purgatory. Today's media focus on the chasm between the words and deeds of establish religious orders.

The consequences?

Not sure, but most likely a further fragmentation of the Christian churches, as individuals become uncomfortable with the actions of their spiritual leaders.

But they will almost certainly adversely affect the churches who are presently trying to divert attention from themselves and their conduct by slagging off atheists.

Hi Pericles,
Thanks for your response. Please note I was not objecting to what you wrote, I was just asking a question (actually two). The article is about something that Pell and Jensen said, without providing links to the exact text of their pronouncements, only a link to an article that by its title did not look like having been authorized by Jensen or Pell. Now I looked at it again, and I see that the article contains quotes from the sermons by Jensen, Pell (as well as from the President of The Atheist Foundation of Australia). So maybe that is all that one can get at from here, and I should not have asked you for an exact quote or even link. Apologies.

I knew you did not use the term “unprecedented” therefore I qualified it with “apparently”: What is objected to are sermons in churches, aimed at closed congregations (who e.g. are supposed to believe in God, so no need to explain that “assault on God” makes sense only if you believe in God). The fact that every Sunday, and especially at Easter, preachers reassure their audience how good it is to be a Christian and how bad not to be one, is hardly newsworthy; the same like others feel obliged (e.g. on this OLO) to “preach” how good (rational, logical, moral etc) it is to be an atheist and how bad not to be one. So I presume this on its own cannot be the “events of Easter” that made you “start to wonder”. (ctd)

(ctd)
However, I agree that one can promote one’s own world-view without derogating the alternative, and that this is a feature of civilised discourse that is often sinned against not only by some atheist spokespersons but also by some Christian preachers. Apparently this happened this Easter more than at other occasions - the trigger being either the Atheist Convention in Melbourne or the pedophile scandals, probably both, although “assualt on God” is obviously a reaction to the former - but I think that this has been happening from both sides. Hence my rhetorical question in a previous post, whether the two bishops were indeed using more derogative words than Dawkins. Of, course, there is no point in comparing piece by piece the “derogatory intensity” of their utterances.

As to the consequences that you are unsure about, so am I, although I think they would lead to internal purification. At least this is what happened many times in the Catholic Church when reacting to an external impulse. Well, you are the historian, not I.

What Joyce *also* has to say about RNA catalysis...

Research Focus
Directed Evolution of RNA and DNA Enzymes

My research concerns the biochemistry of RNA and the development of novel RNA and DNA enzymes through in vitro evolution. Like their protein counterparts, nucleic acid enzymes assume a well-defined structure that is responsible for their catalytic activity. Unlike proteins, however, nucleic acids are genetic molecules that can be amplified and mutated in the test tube. The members of my laboratory and I have learned to exploit the dual role of nucleic acids as both catalyst and genetic molecule to develop RNA- and DNA-based evolving systems that operate entirely in vitro. At best, we can carry out 100 "generations" of test-tube evolution in a day, employing a population of one hundred trillion nucleic acid molecules. This allows us to evolve nucleic acid enzymes far more rapidly than whole organisms evolve in nature.

Our studies of RNA-based evolution are relevant to understanding the early history of life on Earth. It is believed that an RNA-based genetic system, termed the "RNA world", preceded the DNA and protein-based genetic system that has existed for the past 3.5 billion years. Our research aims to recapitulate the biochemistry of the RNA world in the laboratory. We are using in vitro evolution to explore the catalytic potential of RNA, and especially to search for RNA enzymes that have the ability to catalyze their own replication.

Selected References
Joyce, G.F. The antiquity of RNA-based evolution. Nature 418:214, 2002.

Paul, N. , Joyce, G.F. A self-replicating ligase ribozyme. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99:12733, 2002.

Paul, N., Springsteen, G. & Joyce, G.F. Conversion of a ribozyme to a deoxyribozyme through in vitro evolution. Chem. Biol. 13:329, 2006.

Joyce *really* doesn't think RNA is a good model of early catalyst/replicators?

Deliberately using old quotes is so very telling of the fundamental honesty of the creationist. Having supposedly gone and looked up such a quote, you'd think they'd have the decency to just check what Joyce has said recently....... or would you?

Just another quote miner, JP?