Briar Rose,

Thank you for your valuable metaphor: 'the bum of progress'. Its association with religion is most appropriate, given its backward-looking and conservative nature. On the other hand, given the desperate quest for certainty amongst religious people, it is always reassuring to know that we can rely on our bums, rest on our laurels as it were, that they are always there to provide support and stability.

Karl Popper probably wasn't the first philosopher to embrace uncertainty, it probably is inherent in Kant and Schopenhauers' writings, and in fact, the whole point of the Enlightenment may be the recognition - finally - of the unavoidability of uncertainty, that it has ALWAYS been with us and always will be. Hence the violent opposition to it from nationalists, Romantics and the churches in the nineteenth century and beyond, i.e. from both Left and Right.

Why do we crave certainty ? Even on the Left, I know many who embrace Marxism, even Maoism, with that same uncritical, religious fervour, that it has all the answers now and for all time, and that we don't need to ever have doubts or worries ever again: a sort of god has answered all our (sort of) prayers. Perhaps it's a natural reaction to events, to seek a short and sharp response that irons out the creases of life and gives us eternal peace.

But now we know that it can never be so.

Pity about reality :(

Joe

Ozanby,
>>There are no acts committed "in the name of" Atheism<<

Well, I cannot give you an exact quote, where the phrase "in the name of" was used, whether by my Communist teachers (referring to atheism) or Nazis (referring to the German nation) or the Church (referring to Christianity). But I can assure you that much of what we have been exposed to in the Communist countries in the fifties etc, was due to their rejection of religion, notably Chtistianity. They called this attitude atheism, sometimes scientific world-view. Maybe you have had a different experience with living in a totalitarian country whose ideology was dictated by what they themselves called atheism (plus by other things, of course).

Now I see I am repeating myself, because I think you did not read properly what I wrote. For instance, I never claimed that

>> there was only one brand of atheism<< ,
I actually wrote exactly the opposite.

>> What I dislike is the assumption that religion somehow grants virtue <<
I never claimed that either, read my last sentence in that post.

>>When you see the world as it is, religion looks *very* silly...I guess some disrespect creeps both ways too!?<<
Yes, here we genuinely disagree in that though not sharing your opinions about (the cultural phenomenon of) religion I would not call them "very silly" or speak of "creepig disrespect".

As I said before, there are not only good and bad people among atheist as well as theists, there are also many silly people in both the camps. Believe me, I have known many such people irrespective of what they believed or did not believe about reality. Therefore I would be very careful with such sweeping statements.

George, I think it is a mistake to think that atheists have a 'camp' that they can be said to be included in.

I know many that prefer to think of themselves as individuals running wild and free on the boundless plains of intellectual thought. Which is why some of them object to even having an 'atheists society', as they believe it is an anathema to them and does not reflect their views at all, and that when some atheists band together to storm the citadels, they all become a target.

Religions of course thrive on citadels and camps, in fact they are defined by them and cannot understand anything else.

Rhian,

If you’re not sure about the correlation ozandy speaks of, then you need only utilize Google to come up with a lot of studies on this...

http://www.morgantownatheists.com/797/a-chart-of-religiousness-iq-morality-and-more
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VdtwTeBPYQA

Of course, correlation doesn’t necessarily imply causation (for example, the correlation with religiosity and wealth could be just because religions tend to prey on people who are down on their luck); these statistics aren’t proof that religion has a negative affect on societal health nor does it mean that religious societies are necessarily going to end-up a certain way.

But they do, however, disprove the claims of these Christians who run around complaining that everything wrong in our society has become that way because we’re abandoning god and that everything will be okay if we just accept their particular version of god.

As for the communist societies of the 20th century, these were anti-religious societies. They essentially enforced an establishment of atheism by outlawing religion, but they weren’t secular societies and they weren’t truly atheist societies either because there’s nothing within atheism to support what they were doing.

George,

I’m not sure you understand what exactly atheists object to and why.

<<The vast majority of Germans accept that the Nazis were genuinely German, which, of course, does not mean that one cannot be a genuine German while condemning the Nazi version of being German.>>

The difference being, of course, that when theists raise the topic of communism and atheism, they’re not just mentioning inconsequential correlation like the one you show in your analogy, they’re usually implying that the absence of religion leads to communism. You never see any one claim that being German leads to Nazism.

<<Why, on the other hand, are there so many atheists who cannot accept that Communist atheism was what it claimed to be, namely a kind of atheism.>>

See above.

I’m quite comfortable with what you’ve said about the ‘Scientific Atheism’ class and if you insist that the Soviets did what they did in the name of atheism, then I’ll take your word for it - for now.

Why?

Continued...

...Continued

Because atheism is not a philosophy, it is not a belief system, it is not a principal and it is not a worldview. It is either the complete absence of a religious belief or it is the rejection of a claim as unsupported by evidence.

That being said...

<<There are many respectable world-views compatible with atheism, but I think their adherents would make their position more credible if they did not try to explain away the persecution and injustices committed in the name of atheism.>>

There is no need for atheists to explain away anything as there is nothing within atheism to support what the soviets did any way. The only people I could imagine would feel the need to explain anything away would be modern day communists since they share a doctrine with the Soviets.

‘Strong’ atheism is the rejection of a claim as unsupported by evidence.

That being said, if you are implying that atheists need to take some sort of ownership for what was “committed in the name of atheism”, then you are essentially saying that one cannot choose to reject theism unless they carry with them the legacy of communism; in which case you would not only be giving theistic claims an unprecedented validity that they have not yet earned, but a validity that no other claim possibly ever could earn.

<<We, Christians know that, since for many years we tried to explain away injustices and cruelties done in the name of Christianity.>>

Yes, but you at least share a doctrine with those Christians who committed the injustices.

I’ll leave you now with a quote from Sam Harris:

“The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship ... There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

“The fact that the brain comes pre wired with certain innate software is as a result of evolution. Any creature that has to learn everything is doomed. However, the learning ability is to ensure that man is infinitely adaptable.” (Shadow Minister)

Close I would think.

And can be combined with this statement from the article

“Now that we know something about the neurological structures that are essential to our experiencing we have to conclude that the mind is not a clean slate at all but that it is prepared at birth for particular kinds of experience.”

Which leads to the question “Is there a God gene”

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html

Belief in a God has been common to nearly every culture right throughout history, and it does not lead to the probability that humans are born with a desire to believe in a God, and that desire is genetically based.

Although it is now very trendy to vilify religions, and academics may very well receive brownie points from their universities for denigrating and vilifying religions and showing nothing but bigotry, prejudice and disdain to anyone religious , there is a very great probability that humans are genetically predisposed to seek or believe in a God.