Dear David,

You have suggested that politicians state their religious preferences and how it would affect their acts. I think it is a very bad thing as it would bring discussions regarding religion into election campaigns and lead to a closer union of religion and state. I am for their separation.

It is more important what public officials or anybody else do than what they say. We can look at the actions of Bush 2 and Obama. Dubya made displays of public piety and initiated the Faith Based Initiatives programs. Obama kept the Faith Based Initiatives programs for which I have criticised him. However, I was wrong. Rather than getting rid of the Faith Based Initiatives programs or making public pronouncements Obama has appointed a woman as head of the program. She previously headed an organisation devoted to furthering the separation of church and state. By his act Obama has furthered the separation without making public pronouncements or getting into argument. It is important to work for the separation. It is not important to justify my positions to you or the AFA.

Taking my cue from Obama I shall continue to do what I can to further the separation without arguing with the AFA as you suggested or anybody else.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725&page=0 and http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790&page=0 refer you to two articles I have written on the separation for olo. I am supporting Ron Williams’ suit, writing a history of the separation and an article on the subject which will go into a magazine.

What people do is more important than what they say.

"Whether those intelligent politicians have any belief in the supernatural we cannot know. I think all of them are intelligent enough to know they are unelectable unless they claim such a belief."

Oh, so these people aren't really believers, they're just lying to get ahead? So a nice piece of logic you've got going there fellas. Anyone who is a beleiver in "sky fairies" is, according to you, an unthinking simpleton and if they obviously aren't an unthinking simpleton, then they are just lying.

given that Aust has had two avowed atheist PMs, I wonder why Rudd would need to lie about this...but I'm sure you'll have some rationalisation.

Let's take a few non-political examples....Rustum Roy, Henry F. Schaefer, III, Francis Collins, Georges Lemaître. All just fibbing for personal gain?

I have just one point to make. This view that atheists are more logical, more intelligent, more evolved (struth, what conceit!) than those who believe in the deity is demonstrably wrong. Belief is an issue of faith, not logic.

This running around, beating your chest and asserting that those who don't agree with you are somehow unthinking simpletons, is infantile.

The new term for creation is intelligent design; this is an attempt to conceal an outdated concept which allowed humans to cope with things they did not understand. With better science and knowledge surely we can put creation behind us. A serious downside to the concept of creation is that it closes the inquisitive minds of the young. The simple “God made it all in six days” should never be used to explain complex physics or science generally.

I'm not sure that you are on solid ground with this argument, mhaze.

>>This view that atheists are more logical, more intelligent, more evolved (struth, what conceit!) than those who believe in the deity is demonstrably wrong. Belief is an issue of faith, not logic.<<

If faith equals belief, not logic, then the field is wide open for atheists to demonstrate - with logic - that they are altogether smarter and more evolved.

All that you have available to you as a defence, by your own admission, is that you believe they are wrong. A position that you are completely unable to support with evidence, having hobbled your own arguments by claiming that faith is superior to evidence and logic.

I suspect that you need to find a rationale that supports your contention a little more strongly. Right now, all you can say is that "I believe..." is equally intelligent an approach as "logically speaking...".

Otherwise, your contention that atheists are "demonstrably wrong" is merely vacuous bravado.

I must write a long essay on the failure of reason in defining ethics, meaning and telos. Sure it is good with the physical world but when it comes to the existential questions it is wanting. The English Enlightenment produced theology based on reason alone. Its failure produced any kind of result except naive biblicism produced the reaction of relativism and perspectivism. That is, the failure of reason to produce an adequate description of what it means to be human resulted in the abandonment of the search for truth and its substitution by consensus. Now we do not talk about truth, we talk about stakeholders and attempt a democratic solution to pressing problems. The inadequacy of such an approach may be seen in the interminable discussion with no resolution to such problems as abortion. Without a concept of God that is associated with truth we flounder in a sea of perspectives. Read MacIntyre. The attempt to separate church and state and to sequester the religious into the realm of the private robs public debate of the only method of deciding crucial questions. This is not just a matter of obedience to biblical rules, an absurd idea, but a matter of engaging in a tradition that has worked its way through errors and falsehood to produce a rationality fitted to the job.

All of these accusations against the religious of being naive is superfluous, you refuse to engage in the topic at hand.

Peter Sellick

.

Dear David G,

.

"Religion does a great deal of harm ..."
.

That's a fairly comprehensive list of the negative aspects of religion. Of course, it also has a positive side.

Nobody can deny it offers valuable alternative services to those provided by the state in such essential areas as public education and health.

The active involvement of religious groups in social and charity work is also widely appreciated.

The term "religion" derives from the Latin "religare" which means to tie, fasten or bind. Religion links people together. It acts as a catalyst in engendering and maintaining social and political cohesion.

But "religion" means much more than that. It embodies a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature and purpose of the universe, considered as the creation of a superhuman agency, involving devotional and ritual observances, and containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

Its appeal to the masses is considerable, particularly among the poor and the uneducated. Its message is simple: have faith in your god or gods, follow his or their teachings and you will receive protection, relief from your sufferings, comfort and the reward of eternal life with your loved ones.

Faith is the strategy of survival primitive man devised to pacify his early hostile environment. It served him well when he was terrified by the ferocity of natural phenomena of which he understood nothing and had no warning. He invented gods and worshiped them in exchange for their pacification.

Faith continues to save lives in insupportable and hopeless situations during natural catastrophes. It remains a powerful arm in the face of adversity.

But faith in what? For those of us who have had the privilege of understanding that it was primitive man who invented deity and passed it down as a lasting legacy to successive generations, the concept has completely lost its credibility.

Deity is dispensable. Faith is not. We cannot afford to do without faith. It remains a precious arm for survival. We must find a new, credible safe haven for our faith, each and every one of us.

.