Foyle.
I forget sometimes that it's impossible to argue with you people, the only point I want to make is that an artist and philosopher has no business hectoring a religious person and accusing them of ignoring or misrepresenting science.
Dart, Ardrey, Leakey, Stephen Jay Gould, Vere Gordon Childe and all the other artists and philosopers of paleoanthropology, sociobiology, archaeology and history are expressing a set of beliefs.
Carbon dating proved the age of Leakey's fossils, the location of the finds made it statistically PROBABLE but not certain that they all came from the same animal or same sort of animal. Analysis of the morphology of said fossils and comparative anatomy (statistics again) allowed these artists and philosophers to elaborate on their artistic impression of animal remains which they had interpreted as a "Hominid".
You surely must concede that "Out Of Africa" is a set of beliefs with severe ethical restrictions and corresponding codes of conduct attached, as I've said, it's a minefield.
The lack of academic contradiction of this world view can be easily explained by looking at other taboos such as Holocaust revisionism which is illegal in many European countries. The body representing French historians even went so far as to produce a statement declaring any study which contradicts the official history of Gas/Cremate, six million to be unethical and unsuitable for peer review or publication, even though there has never been an official scientific or even artistic/archaeological investigation of the claims made at Nuremberg and since about those four camps in Poland.
I've explained my point of view, it's not even really so far removed from your own in that I accept that evolution is statistically probable, I just don't hold any beliefs on any such matter and don't see science as capable of "affirming" an artistic impression of the world.

Some things never change.

"Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful" - Seneca (ca. 4 BC –AD 65)

"All religions are equally sublime to the ignorant, useful to the politician, and ridiculous to the philosopher". - Lucretius (94 BC - 49 BC)

Another wanna-be Tea Party Assembly with a few dropped religious references and everybody jumps onto their bandwagons - evolution, creationism, atheism and so on but no discussion of any real issues related to the substance of the meeting itself.

Rupert would be pleased.

This article makes a very good point about how Abbott's belief is a critical part of how he views the world, and is not just "an ethical guide".

John is provocative - I would not have used the term "raving theologians". Still, I don't think there are any problems with the article that devalue its main point. Do we claim that the tiniest imperfection renders something worthless ? All too much political comment is like that, together with an attack on the person rather than the ideas.

Regardless of the nature of atheism and how John relates to it, he makes good points about how Abbott's religious influence, how less religious countries are in fact freer, and how the IPA has promoted views that deny the workings of a positive democracy.

We've a string of bland assertions without any detail with do not engage with anything in the article, as noted by rache.

Proof by strong assertion.

A secular world "impoverished" ? Well, Secular nations are a lot freer, as noted by John. Go figure.

Seneca and Lucretius observe how religion is used by politicians - when Abbott talks about religion, it seems to me he is talking about these things being *true* because they've been ordained by God. They're not just "informing" him.

You can speak separately of some lessons from the bible. Its valid to observe that you should "not do as you please". Yes. However, to say you'd be "[un]worthy of creation in the image of God" ... well, that loses me. It seems to me it is *not* being quoted out of context - Abbott is saying these things are true *because God says so*. He's not merely being "informed" by these ideas.

Some Christian sentiments have worth buried within them, but the link to God is problematic. Those who defend Abbott are noting one thing and ignoring another.

Science and religion not in conflict ? Depends on where you look. There was Gallileo and the Church. Even today, many churches have issues with Evolution - just look at the posts here. Some believers may assert that religion and belief are conciliable, but that belies what's you can see all around.

There's good reason for John focusing on his topics, and it his choice to focus on what he finds important. But a string of people have queued up to say that something else is in fact most important. Well, look - write an article on OLO, and I'll then post a comment to it saying that the influence of religion on politics is more important than the point that you're trying to make. Heck, maybe you'll make it in a considered way. But I'll still ignore completely ignore what you're saying and claim that my own issues are more important than yours. Good stuff.

As an atheist, I'm happy to acknowledge the positive contribution of denominations like the Uniting Chuch, and the perogative to believe. But I do not claim total knowledge - I'm willing to acknowledge the possibility of a creator-god (Deism), but having a creator God tells us nothing about how to lead our lives or relate to the world. Reason tells you what to do. God is silent. If he had an intention, it was for us to figure it out ourselves.

As for the ensemble of the "Judaeo-Christian Loving Interventionist God" - there I'm definitely an atheist. I don't claim to know everything, but that God is inconsistent with what I see around me.

Devoted to my atheism like others are devoted to their faith ? I'd like to think I'm thinking about what's going on, for myself and in my own way, but I'll leave it for others to judge.

I think John writes a good article. Others can think what they will - its a free country !

“Obviously the causes which I prefer, social justice, the Common Good and an education which teaches children how to look for and evaluate evidence, is not part of the agenda of neo-liberals or the Institute of Public Affairs.”
The Common Good – I wonder where that came from, John? It’s mentioned a lot in Catholicism. Social justice – look up Rerum Novarum,John, an encyclical of Pope Leo III which is all about social justice and egalitarianism. Ie. All for giving dignity to workers and not to treat them as slaves. Evidence – why don’t you go reach for the stars. The Vatican has it’s own Astronomy academies in several locations around the world and in it’s own state. Are you saying there are no Christian scientists? History begs to differ and it was a Jesuit priest who invented the Big Bang theory, and now with the recent Higgs discovery (God Particle) appears to back it up, don't you reckon?
Cont...

“As Christopher Hitchens wrote: Faith is the surrender of the mind; it's the surrender of reason, it's the surrender of the only thing that makes us different from other mammals.”
Yes, surrendering does make us different from mammals. I think your confused point has backfired, John.

Brian Eno said: “I realised I was a lapsed atheist when the Four Horseman (of New Atheism) started writing their books - Dawkins, Dennet, Sam Harris, C Hitchens,” he explains. They all wrote books that were very, very anti-religious and…. I baulked. I love gospel music, you see. I probably listen to it more than anything else. And I thought, What am I actually liking? It isn’t the celebration of God or some form of belief. What I’m enjoying is hearing people “surrendering”, letting go and becoming part of something. And if you think about the great human desires - sex, drugs, art and religion – what are those except different ways of saying, I want to be other or more or different from just me?”

We may just find that there may be less egomania and narcissism in this world if there was more surrendering.

Hitchen’s, was full of hatred of religion who loved to pick on one particularly small Albanian woman who surrendered herself to the poor and suffering. Wasn’t Hitch supposed to be a misogynist? Funny he has a brother, Peter who is a prominent proponent of Christianity.

Oh goodness, these New Atheists are only fundamentalists after all, and their militancy and extremism is just plain scary. How can anyone take these people seriously.