Vitz's book is obviously a handy bullwark against the secularist line of how evil religion is. It is a good companion to Alice Miller's "For your own good" that seeks the roots of the violence of WWII in German pedagogy. Also, "The barbarian conversions" by Flecher and "The secular revolution" ed Smith. It is pleasing to see the pendulum swing back in academe, but alas the Australian version still lives in righteous and self congratulatory atheism.

I would be interested to see how the same explanation would be twisted to fit the situation where religious believers are hating and killing each other, because of differences in their religious beliefs. The atheists and their fathers can hardly be blamed for that lot!

I am a third generation secular humanist with a strong and very much present and loving father and grandfather (and mother and grandmother, for that matter). I am, in the main a happy and productive member of society, with my own ideas about truth and morality, but I do not expect others to believe what I believe. My truth is my truth, not The Truth. I cannot agree that religion has historically been a force for good - and I am being ecumenical here, I mean all religion. Religion has always benefited the powerful, men over women, believers over unbelievers, parents over children etc. Not faith, necessarily, not the original prophets perhaps, but the codified rules that always seem to be imposed on faith by human beings. Perhaps religion is like communism, terrific in theory but not so good when it is practised by real, flawed human beings. More human beings have died in the name of Gods throughout history than in the name of anything else, and I include WW2 here. Leading Nazis may have been athiests but the anti-semitism they exploited was very much part of Christian tradition, and most of their followers came from a Christian background.
And the idea I should believe in God because I might go to hell if I am wrong is, to my mind, beneath contempt. If God (should s/he exist) is so petty as to condemn me to eternal suffering simply because I believed something different, then s/he is about as insecure as many of his/her followers. If I was to believe in God, I'd hope they were a more inspirational diety than the one described here.
But please be clear, I do not mock or condemn personal faith. I respect it, it is the need to convert that puzzles me and the heirachy of churches that I take issue with. I'll respect your beliefs and not try to persuade you to believe otherwise, when you respect mine.

enaj; I heartily endorse your sentiments. I am not afraid when my life is at an end, because I do not believe in a god so petty as to condemn me for my belief system.

Ben-Peter Terpstra be more concerned about the good you can do in this current life and leave others to follow their own consciences. I find your reasoning rather faulty eg; muslims have come under just as much if not more criticism by atheists since 9/11. In fact all religions must come under question when disputes between them leads to so much bloodshed.

BTW my father is alive and well and we have a very good relationship.

I can see this being a repeat of previous discussions. The author does raise a point which is worthy of discussion. The issue of the risks associated with being wrong about God.

- Firstly he narrows the field a bit to much. By my understanding there are plenty of other belief structures which place evangelical christians at risk if the other belief structure is correct - even with christianity there has been a history of suggesting other denominations might be at risk let alone the possibility that the Muslem's might be on the right track. Every belief structure carries a risk if you are wrong.

- The view that there is nothing for christians to lose if there is no god/eternity etc. There is some sense to this. I take the view that the only thing I really have is my life. I don't wish to waste it serving a lie. I try and live by ethics which I can be happy with.

- I don't see living an eternity with the christian god as a thing to aspire to if that god is a reliably portrayed in the bible and represented by his body the christian church. Not wishing to be a snob but you have to have some standards.

- My finite brain is unable to come to terms of an eternity of pain and suffering - what I can grasp of the idea is something that I dread the thought of. Do I sell out and worship the idea of a god I have no respect for because of the penalty if I don't? When I am not in the heat of the moment (no hot brimstone here) then I will make what I consider to be the ethical choice and reject that. Not sure I will be wrapped in my choice if I am wrong about god and ethics seem like a moot point but how sure are any of us ahead of time.

I embraced atheism after I participated in and rejected the alternatives.I discuss my beliefs with other people who are interested to hear my point of view and I am not interested in participating in an evangelical crusade.I dont believe in god,I do not anticipate a 'life after death'...Pie-in-the-sky....
I don't believe in the creationist theory. I'm grateful to Charles Darwin and other thinkers who continue to add to our knowledge.
You can believe what you like as long as you dont seek to force your beliefs on me.I am polite and civil to the door knockers seeking to reinforce their own beliefs by convincing others but I would prefer they don't waste my time or theirs.

Humans need a creed to live by and I reckon one could be developed if you took the best out of each of the basic tenets and just called it "THE CREED"...But I'm not holding my breath, The chance might arise when the American Empire goes the way of the Roman Empire.

Maracas.

“the psychological concepts…can also…be used to explain their unbelief.” This is a bit like explaining an unbirthday, in true Mad Hatter style. The onus of proof lies on those who want to believe in something, not in those who don’t. If I started trying to explain someone's unbelief in unicorns as a means of justifying my belief in them I would rightly be laughed at.

A better investigation in this topic would be how many believers believe because their fathers told them from an early age that they had to believe. This would explain why, in an of greater religiosity, those who didn’t have fathers or didn’t communicate well with them didn’t believe – they didn’t have it rammed down their throat by their fathers from an early age.

Face it, no one knows for sure.Could this be away of testing our courage and tenacity?There could be a god,but the bad news could be that we will not have a consciousness beyond our mortal limitations.

I suspect life after death,is like life before death.I'm just having problems with my memory, pre-birth and pre-conception.

The ideas of this book go some way to confirm the belief that religion is best viewed as virus of the mind (like Dawkins’ meme theory). It is a form of mental ‘programming’ which spreads through minds via culture and language. The easiest way for this to happen is from a father to his son, since as we know sons mimic their fathers – provided the relationship is healthy. If Sartre had a religious father, then “thank god” the relationship was bad – otherwise he may have absorbed the belief in fairies.

Face what, Arjay? That there might be a god, or there might be unicorns, or both? There is an equal amount of evidence for both.

Should I write a book explaining why some people don’t believe in unicorns, and then have these ideas discussed on a national forum?

As a Atheist I always find it amusing that Christians always fall into the same trap.
Either their right or the atheist are they seem to forget that there are many other religions out there. Atheist hold the opinion that there is no supernatural forces. Christians not only not believe this they also believe they know it nature. As with most things faith based it’s a straw man easy to set a light.

Kennyyyyy....I'm sending you back to primary school brudder to learn some basic grammer.. I struggggle to make sense of some stuff you say, I'm afraid this time is a classic. So, its difficult to know how to respond to you.

But I don't find it difficult to see a connection between the intensity of disbelief and a poor father son relationship. I don't see that in the article this was proposed as any kind of universal "If u have a bad father you will be an atheist" kind of thing, but he was pointing out that a considerable number of influential thinkers DID have that experiential background.

GREG... 'virus of the mind' ? well, Paul suggests we need to be 'transformed by the renewal of your minds' but his appeal is based on some very down to earth facts about Christ. I will agree with one thing, to have a 'Christian' mindset is totally DIFFerent from having a secular one.
You can probably not appreciate this until you encounter situations like the young mentally troubled chap who took his life after killing the policement with his own handgun. I knew that young man and know his parents, and while there is little one can do about mental illness such as Mark Bailey had, the aftermath of such tragedies can be handled in totally different ways than the normally expected gloom and doom which most people would be subjected to.

Even if one assumes that Vitz is correct and atheism is (often) a projection of psychological needs & issues, no argument would be made out against the atheistic position. A psychological explanation for belief in gods is a valid argument against theism because it provides a reason for religious belief that is not supernatural. But the counter claim is merely an attack against atheists themselves, because it would never suggest a supernatural cause and instead the argument must rely on the ad hominem fallacy.

A poor father figure may very well increase the likelihood of someone adopting an atheistic position, but so what? A "healthy" background does not make someone's theological position more valid, nor does the opposite background deprive people of the capability for rational thought. It may simply be that the lack of a good father figure often raises the initial doubts about the concept of a supreme patriarch or makes it easier to reject the notion. And yes, it could sometimes result in an outright rejection of the notion of supreme authority without proper consideration, but again I ask, so what? It is not an argument against the atheistic position and even if it were the examples are not a statistical study, so such a correlation may not exist in fact or may be limited to males.

The article itself seems to be written with more interest in attacking atheists than in finding facts or reviewing the book. This is demonstrated by "secular fundamentalists hate God", the bizarre claims about Muslims and anti-Americanism and the references to Hitler and Stalin as if Nazism and communism were ever *about* atheism. (Similarly many so-called religious wars had nothing to do with religion.) And Pascal's wager is brought up once again, which suggests that the author of the article has never taken the time to explore the views of atheists.

The review is ridiculous and the book is obviously inane.

Greg-m you missed my point."I suspect life after death is like life before birth." I'm suggesting the great nothingness of athieism.
Raving athieists and religious fundamentalists are but one in the same.We just don't know enough about the universe to be so sure of the realities and unrealities that science is discovering.The concepts of other universes beyond "black holes" are but a few new notions that are challenging our traditional views of reality.

While I don't accept the views of traditional religions ,I respect their achievements,and see these things as a progression of our consciousness.

This article drips with amateur attempts to veil intent. The author's intent here is to boost his religious self esteem, which that mere act alone is an indication of the validity of one's religious claims.

This author shows his naiveté by using the old and widely ridiculed ‘Pascal’s Wager’. The flaws of Pascal’s Wager are so obvious, it is used as an example in some of the most introductory of Philosophy classes. The “What if you’re wrong?” argument shows the non-objectivity of the person asking such a question, and their lack of understanding of the basics of logic, reason, and deduction.

Pascal’s Wager first assumes the nature and definition of God. If the Wiccan God and Goddess are the true gods, then Pascal’s Wager does not apply. Pascal’s Wager only applies IF the ONLY way a God could exist is for that God to be like the Christian God.

And this author also has no clue about scientific statistics. He takes “well known’ atheists and assumes they are a valid sampling of all atheists. He doesn’t’ consider a whole host of other factors that could create both atheism AND success. What this author needs to sit down and learn is how to take a sampling of any sub-group.

OhioJoe

I fully agree, OhioJoe, the stupidity of this article (and book) is that it rests on the existence of the Christian God. It is patently illogical to attempt to give psychological reasons for not believing in something which nobody has proven to exist.

Yet it is fascinating to try to understand why some humans insist on believing in something for which there is absolutely no evidence. The main reason people do this is that they are taught this from an early age – often with religious fathers as role models (how many Popes were converted atheists who 'saw the light'?). Luckily, some people do not idolise their fathers enough to be brainwashed into believing everything they say – there is an obvious danger in trusting in authority figures without thinking critically about what they are saying.

The article and book inadvertently adds support for what it sets out to attack – militant, righteous skepticism and atheism.

Some feminist theologians would argue that at least with Christianity it a boy thing - boys trying to work out their relationships!

The Atheistic reaction is interesting when they are subject to the same claims that have been levelled at Christians. Many atheists have assumed for years that Christians have just made up God and that religion is just a crutch. Perhaps now both Atheists and Christians can forget this meaningless insult and actually investigate which groups set of beliefs better explains observed reality.

Some important insights on others comments.
Enaj " with my own ideas about truth and morality, but I do not expect others to believe what I believe."
You expect others not to go against your morality every day. Or are you saying you don't condone restraining anyones personal freedom todo whatever they want (Including forcing their morality on you)?

Enaj "Religion has always benefited the powerful"
By what standards do you define 'benefited'?

Enaj "More human beings have died in the name of Gods throughout history than in the name of anything else"
Prove it. This is a poor assertion. If you want to look at recent history, Godless Atheism resulted in 100 million deaths in the 20th century. I am not denying people clash over religion, but reductionistic attitudes to the causes of war are useless.

Enaj "But please be clear, I do not mock or condemn personal faith. I respect it"
Sure you do. You just believe that their faith is irrational and wrong...such respect. And then you finish with.

Enaj "I'll respect your beliefs and not try to persuade you to believe otherwise, when you respect mine."

Essentially you are saying that when I have changed my belief to agree with yours (on evangelising) you will respect my belief and not try to change my belief to agree with yours. Your pretend tolerance is fairly obvious.

Xena "BenPeter Terpstra be more concerned about the good you can do in this current life and leave others to follow their own consciences."
Yep. He should quit trying to follow his conscience and instead follow yours. Do you people even understand how hypocritical you are being?

Greg_m "The onus of proof lies on those who want to believe in something"
Sure. Prove that our minds are capable of determining truth and that the natural world exists. Prove that empiricism and human reason is the only source of knowledge.

Deuc "A psychological explanation for belief in gods is a valid argument against theism because it provides a reason for religious belief that is not supernatural"
Wrong. It is not an argument against Theism. It is merely an explanation created to fit atheistic assumptions. To use it as an argument against theism is begging the question. The truth of a belief is not measured by why people believe it, but in the belief itself.

Grey

"Xena "BenPeter Terpstra be more concerned about the good you can do in this current life and leave others to follow their own consciences."
Yep. He should quit trying to follow his conscience and instead follow yours. Do you people even understand how hypocritical you are being?"

Now you are being absurd. I didn't ask anyone to follow MY conscience, as if anyone could. Simply that Terpstra apparently has nothing better to do than desperately attempt to discredit non christians.

And to judge from your massive 'dis' on so many other posters 'twould appear you have a lot of time to spare also.

Dear Grey,
May I respond point by point?
a. I expect people to respect my moral code and, as long as it doesn't actively hurt them (or their's hurt me), to treat me as an adult and let me make my own, personal moral decisions. Truly, that is all. You can argue with me vigorously if you want, but you won't have a snowflake's chance in hell of persuading me if you do not respect me.
b. Religion has always benefited the powerful by re-inforcing their right to hold on to the power. When men argue it's "God's will" women take a lesser role, it seems like an awfully convenient God to me.
c. No-one has ever fought a war to spread athiesm; communism maybe, which rejected religion, nazism, which was run by athiests but used and co-opted religion, yes. Nobody has ever said I'm fighting the Godfull hordes to convert them to athiesm. Yet how many times have we heard the opposite ; we're fighting the Godless hordes to convert them to Christianity, Islam, take your pick? Armies still claim, as they march into battle, that they have a God on their side.
d. I don't believe their faith is wrong. I don't share their belief but, I am not God (if you'll pardon the expression) and just because I don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong. Faith I have respect for, it is religion I have a problem with. There is a difference.
e. Don't change your beliefs on my account. Believe whatever you want, you can even evangelise, if you must, as long as you give me equal right to reject (politely) what you have to say, as far as it fitting into my own life is concerned.

Grey: "Prove that our minds are capable of determining truth and that the natural world exists. Prove that empiricism and human reason is the only source of knowledge".

The fact that our minds are capable of determining truth is best demonstrated by the discipline of mathematics, where absolute logical truth exists. 1 + 1 = 2. Truth.

Basic philosophical theories of truth range from correspondence, coherence, and pragmatic (see http://www.iep.utm.edu/t/truth.htm). The pragmatic approach most closely resembles the scientific method, and is the best way to get around the absurd radical skepticism/postmodernism you are putting forward (this is the kind that Descartes attempted to defeat by saying "I think, therefore I am").

The pragmatic approach and the scientific method see truth as an evolving process, where accepted truths are always able to be challenged by new evidence and/or argument. Also within the pragmatic theory, the utility of beliefs are taken into account. For instance, to not believe that the natural world exists would be completely useless. Why bother sitting there typing garbage on an internet chat room if you’re not even sure if the natural world exists?

Xena ! true to form :) "now your being absurd"

man.. the arrogance in that is mind boggling.......
see ? can you hear yourself ?

roll with the punches deary, and respond with some kind of engagement rather than 'your absurd'.

grr

Terpstra writes: "Atheists, on the other hand, can’t afford the luxury of making a mistake with potential eternal consequences. If God exists, then I’d hate to think about what awaits them in the next life."
Why be so worried about that, they may do just fine in the next life? God (however we imagine He/She) wont judge anyone on whether they believed in God, talked about God, joined God groups etc etc. If God judges and sends people to heaven, hell or anywhere else, it will be based on how they lived their life. Did they treat others with love, respect and forgiveness? Did they look inwards to their conscience; did they listen inwards to the faint little voice of spirit in making decisions.
God is not likely to be such an IDIOT as to judge and condemn based on whether someone showed outward trappings like membership of a religious group or professing to be religious.
I can't believe Terpstra can have such a simplistic, fearful approach to what happens when he dies.

Ironer

Good post, not absurd at all. One would like to think that god does possess a degree of common sense.

Boaz I really don't think that you were patronising enough - how do you think jesus would've responded?

;-)

Ironer, I would like to think that if there is an afterlife that is run on a saner basis than that proposed by the christian church. They have built a large proportion of their marketting pitch around "join or burn" as have the offshoots.

Personally I don't expect any afterlife, not keen to have my existance come to an end but on the other hand not real keen on an eternity of kneeling around telling an insecure god how great he is/yes really.

I don't hold a hope of any external power judging me based on how I've lived my life, it does not hurt to live as though that is how our fate will be decided though.

Xena... u actually noticed my patronizing ? :) As for 'how would Jesus have responded, when you profess him as Lord and Savior, then u can pick on me :) Actually, ur welcome to pick on me anytime, I constantly need reminders of my humanity and weakness, and most of all, of how much I really need HIM in my heart to overcome the 'natural' me. So, a hearty 'amen' to your friendly rebuke. But at the same time, we ALL (including you) need a poke from time to time about how we are coming across and Christians are not holding an exclusive mortgage on sounding arrogant. We still have to live with each other in society.

Ironer, its not 'join' or burn, its 'Turn or burn' .. but either way, they miss the mark about what it means to be Christian, as does your post. It not about 'joining God groups' etc, its about knowing Christ. From that, one will desire fellowship and support. The gospel as proclaimed by Jesus was 2 things "Turn" (repent) and "believe" (in Him, the gospel) and those who respond thus will receive forgiveness from God. To present this as 'turn or burn' is a sad miscontrual of the reality. Jesus was the culmination of a few thousand years of God reaching down/out to humanity to restore a broken relationship. . As Jesus said

John 12
47"As for the person who hears my words but does not keep them, I do not judge him. For I did not come to judge the world, but to save it. 48There is a judge for the one who rejects me and does not accept my words; that very word which I spoke will condemn him at the last day. 49For I did not speak of my own accord, but the Father who sent me commanded me what to say and how to say it. 50I know that his command leads to eternal life. So whatever I say is just what the Father has told me to say."

Grey, and anyone else arguing in favour of the potential 'truths' of religion, check out this latest article from satirical paper 'The Onion': http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4119
According to your reasoning, there can be no problem with this 'new' form of religion.

Xena - You specifically told Ben-Peter what he SHOULD do. You obviously decided on what you thought he should do based upon your conscience. So you told him what to do (leave people to follow their consciences) based on your conscience. Essentially you are not following your own advice.
Hence you are being hypocritical. QED

Greg_m "The fact that our minds are capable of determining truth is best demonstrated by the discipline of mathematics, where absolute logical truth exists. 1 + 1 = 2. Truth"
Wrong. Simple definitions do not indicate that your mind is able to accurately determine reality. You are making a category mistake.

Note that you also failed to address the idea that empricism and human reason is the only source of knowledge.
On theories of truth you say
"For instance, to not believe that the natural world exists would be completely useless."
Of course. However the question of how to determine truth is a different question to whether our minds are able to determine truth. That you have to simply make an irrational leap of faith to accept that your brain is able to determine truth is evidence that your basic beliefs do not properly explain reality.

Enaj
I am happy to discuss things with you and I respect you. Indeed, I respect that fact that you have taken the time to respond to my comments. However, respecting a person is different to respecting their ideas. If someone's ideas are wrong, then it is uncaring to allow them to continue believing those ideas. Ideas have consequences and bad ideas have bad consequences.

"I expect people to ..." Indeed. I understand your point of view. I was merely pointing out that this expectation is no different to someone else expecting you to follow their moral code. You are saying that people SHOULD act in a way that agrees with your moral code (at least in some instances). Just don't pretend that you aren't expecting others to follow your moral code.

"Religion has always benefited..." Repeating something does not make it true. To claim that religion has ALWAYS benefited the powerful is not supportable.

"No-one has ever fought a war to spread athiesm; communism maybe" Semantics. Inherent in the spread of communism was the intentional spreading of atheism. That was part of WHY they invaded other countries; To remove what they thought was the pathology of religious belief in order to progress society towards their vision of utopia. Most of communism derives from atheism.

"I don't believe their faith is wrong....and just because I don't agree with something doesn't make it wrong"
As you are a 'secular humanist', That means you believe that the supernatural doesn't exist. If you believe this, then by obvious implication you believe that anyone who thinks the supernatural exists is wrong. I am not saying that something IS right or wrong, but merely that you BELIEVE it to be wrong.

"... you can even evangelise, if you must, as long as you give me..."
Here you go again. You are saying I SHOULD act in some way. You are trying to impose your beliefs in me in that respect. Your beliefs are not neutral. You need to realise that.

Grey instead of playing your little game of semantics and pseudo philosophy with the posters to this forum I am interested in your opinion of Ben-Peter Terpstra's review of 'Faith of the Fatherless - the Psychology of Atheism'.

Are you able to put forth your views on this topic?

Thank you

Grey,
It is encouraging to read your posts! I have noted that whenever a post comes up that happens to support "God" or the "Church" the evangelists for the defence of atheism are attracted to it like flies to a BBQ. It obviously arouses their anger or passion, and they attack the messenger rather than the message. Is there something in their psyche that arouses their passion, and their defence of atheism? I wonder if it is that they have no positive ministry to hurting people like we have in the church.

I belong to a Church that has in attendance a Doctor atheist and secular humanists who is impressed with the ministry done by the Church in the community. He sends his patients to this Church for emotional and spiritual support. He still has not come to faith, but he realises it changes people to positive fulfilled lives

Neither the athiests or the traditional religions have the answers.In evolutionary terms,we have just decended from the trees.Our intelligence is in a very infantile state.We know so little and seem so sure of everything on both sides of this debate.

The real debate from a human view is that can we have ethics and trust as in the past with the subjective rewards and punishments of religion as opposed to the cold hard reality of athieism that leaves us with only survival of the fittest? There is no doubt that those who believe in a god seem to cope better than most.What is spirituality?It has no quantifiable means of measurement.Is it really just our aspirational self?

Is it better to believe in a lie and find some solace from this uncompromising universe,than to believe in a reality that could lead to alienation of self from the empathy we should feel for others.

I have yet to see proof for the existence of a god but also sense the athiests don't have the answers either.

The book is about militant athiests, not normal, healthy, have-a-few-beers-and-watch-the-cricket athiests. Surely people who are militant about anything are more likely to be nutters than people who just get on with their lives.

Personally, I tend to think that being militant about your belief that something doesn't exist (a god, for example) is more than a little pathetic.

It depends on what type of god one believes in. If it is the Spirit and mind behind the design and unity in the diverse universe then we have a precedent to meditate upon. Our own mind is a sample of the design and nature of the Creator mind, and is able to perceive order or regular patterns that make some sense. If there is order in the chronology of the human life and we give it a purpose, eg to support and socialise and build good relationships with others as a species then this indicates a purpose in the design. The mind that put this design in place is God. God is not mine exclusively, you have to meditate upon what is the purpose that will fulfil your life and positively enhance the life of those around you? This introduces a moral choice, so to enhance another has a sense of rightness about it. God is not some giant spatial being, God is Spirit in whose image we have some affinity. The question is are we here by design or by accident? What is the first cause that designed the nature of reality?

I always liked the following argument:

-----------------------
1. God is a marvellous thing that functions like an immensely complicated wind-up watch.

2. The existence of an immensely complicated wind-up watch implies the existence of a watchmaker.

3. Logically, therefore, God must have been created by some sort of maker of immensely complicated wind-up watches.
-----------------------

Given that the only maker of immensely complicated wind-up watches that I can think of is homo sapiens, I must conclude that God was very probably created by homo sapiens.

Good argument Ian.

I guess god is the god we had to have. (apologies to Paul Keating)

;)

The operative phrase is "monoply on truth". Atheists desperately want the public to believe that Atheists have a monopoly on truth. The reason for this is so they can impose their morality - or lack of it, on the public by force. And the morality they want to impose is sexual irresponsibility - usually homosexuality. Mostly Atheists are homosexual, but occasionally they are bisexual, but irresponsibility is the whole of their Law - abortion at the drop of a hat, etc. They have no interest in God - do not want to know. All they want is hot sex! Keith

Not that Kthrex is paranoid or anything.....

Thanks Keith I had a good laugh. Admittedly at your expense, but hey I take my laughs where I can. BTW I'm het, male and atheist and not remotely interested in your sex life and what you do with it.

Ben-peter's article is a very puerile attempt to discredit atheism - why? Does atheism interfere with his lifestyle?

Ian,
If you believe are a wind up clock then your argument would make some sense. Since you are a wound up clock, I ask why are you wound up? However I have not seen a wind up clock that is self winding and can reason and change directions at will. If you believe the universe is just energy winding down. I ask where did the energy originate and where is it going?

Philo,

My argument suggests that god is a like a wind-up watch, not that I am. I realise that humans are more complex than wind-up watches.

If we can't cope with a universe of inexplicable origin, then how does it help to posit a god of inexplicable origin? And if we can accept a god that came from nothing or that simply "always was", then why not accept a universe that came from nothing or that simply "always was"?

Inventing gods (one or more: makes no real difference) does not resolve anything: it just denies our ignorance by pushing the problem one step further away.

Ian,
It is obvoius your view of god is lesser than the complex person of man and lesser than the creator of the human mind. You are not adventerous enough to believe in a mind greater than yours, and whose design we are discovering more of each day. Do you believe you are a series of random accidents or the product of a plan and design? Without a purpose it is all very pointless, and life has no meaning. What a depressing thought.

Philo, we both know that it is pointless trying to convince each other on these points. I do not feel that my life is meaningless and depressing, you do, let's leave it at that.

I have no difficulty at all with believing in a mind greater than my own: Shakespeare being the first example that springs to mind. I do not, however, believe that he created the world.

The complexity of the universe, and especially of life, fascinates me. I just find it rather sad and reductive to put it all down to "design" rather than seriously trying to understand it.

Agree Ian,the concept of god is infantile,our understanding of the universe is at best basic.God is only a father figure,yet we assume that all evoultion follows that which happened on Earth.

Quote" Agree Ian,the concept of god is infantile,our understanding of the universe is at best basic. God is only a father figure,yet we assume that all evoultion follows that which happened on Earth."

Posted by Arjay

Derogatory words flow easy! It is easy to dismiss without thought the aspirations that some have of higher reality. Some minds perceive order and purpose that indicates deliberate design that others merely dismiss as a series of accidental reactions - brainless thinking.

Philo, Arjay was expressing an opinion - he wasn't being derogatory at all. The image of god throughout all religions is extremely patriachal, I too find such a concept very infantile. Before you claim I am sexist I would find a totally matriachal god as infantile as well.

As Ian says
"The complexity of the universe, and especially of life, fascinates me. I just find it rather sad and reductive to put it all down to "design" rather than seriously trying to understand it."

This is as far from 'brainless thinking' as you are from agreeing to disagree with posters such as Arjay and Ian.

If your beliefs provide you with comfort and a sense of purpose than I am not going to deride you for that. However, to insult the intelligence of posters who hold a different world view to you IS infantile.

If you want to make converts to your POV ever thought of using a little honey?

When I was a 14 year old, of infantile mind I concluded that God was merely a father figment of the adult male mind; until I gained a deeper understanding of spiritual reality. Yes the mind is part of that spiritual reality. Because the creations of the mind are not physical or even chemical, does not mean the will is not real or spiritual, though both show observeable physical and chemical activities in the body. The fact that atheist wish to reduce all direction to random accidental events, I wish to believe in purposeful design and principles of behaviour (law) that show there is deliberate design by a mind even as reflected in our own mind. Of course? atheists believe the mind is a mass of tissue that has random chemical activity that is unrelated to any purpose or principles of design. As I stated - brainless thinking.

Philo,

like many on ‘your side’ of the debate, you make a mistake by describing evolutionary theory as being simply random and accidental.

The phrase ‘natural selection’ was put forward by Darwin in relation to the ‘artificial selection’ he observed in domesticated animals. Humans artificially breed advantageous traits into cats, dogs, cows, etc, whereas in nature, advantageous traits are selected by natural selection via processes such as genetic mutations, gene flow and genetic drift.

There is ‘purpose’ in natural selection: adaptation to and survival in a changing environment. This is what scientists refer to when they speak of ‘nature’s design’. There is certainly no long term ‘purpose’ to this evolution, or any progress toward fulfilling the goals of an external being.

The ‘militant atheists’ that the article refers to (which we are supposed to be discussing, by the way) would argue that the human mind is related primarily to the purpose of language and reason. Neither of which you seem to have a decent grasp of.

The theory of evolution is based on far more logic and scientific fact than the theory of religion.

It would be really an enticing feeling of security to know that some perfect being is watching over us, just like mum and dad.The stark reality of survival however is the over riding circumstance that is our daily routine.

Where is god ,when after 50yrs of marriage a spouse due to alzhiemers disease, fails to recognise their partener with whom they've shared their most intimate secrets?Surely the spiritual self would come to the fore and over ride any earthly short comings.For your god to forsake you in your most dire hour of need, is surely an act of a traitor.

Computers are already create movies like "Shrek" with characters we empathise with.When science creates robots with emotions and realistic facial expressions,will they too have a soul and a spiritual self?

My view is that the concept of god is irrelevant.It is the development of the "conscious self" that makes us more mature,courageous and dynamic beings.

PS My children go to a religious school and it bothers me not what they believe in terms of god.We judge people by their actions,not their belief systems.Above all,keep an open mind on this amazing universe.Our concept of the singularity of a god or any belief, may well be wrong.

Philo said:

"...atheists believe the mind is a mass of tissue that has random chemical activity that is unrelated to any purpose or principles of design. As I stated - brainless thinking. "

Ummm... that was either the wittiest or dumbest oxymoron I've read from a godbotherer here lately. Given the mental straitjacket chosen by Philo, it has to be the latter...

greg_m Quote, “The ‘militant atheists’ … would argue that the human mind is related primarily to the purpose of language and reason. Neither of which you seem to have a decent grasp of.”

Note: “of” used twice and to end a sentence, both flawed humans, eh? Not all the brain is used for reasoning, as aesthetic appreciation is a form of worship occupied by the mind that can leave us speechless. Those that use this part of the mind love life.

Ringtail Quote,” As Ian says, "The complexity of the universe, and especially of life, fascinates me. I just find it rather sad and reductive to put it all down to "design" rather than seriously trying to understand it."

I ask what methods of rationale will you use to deduce your understanding of reality, obviously not any order or method of deduction? That might give it unintended design. That the universe operates on measurable principles of physics might indicate design, so we ought not use any understanding of design?

As I stated – “brainless thinking”: The reaction to this was typical human deduction. The brain is a physical organ that reasons upon existing known criteria of design or purpose. It is obvious you can conceive purpose outside of evolutionary design, design thought without a brain, will with motive

Maracas, Quote, “I'm grateful to Charles Darwin”.

Evolution isn’t the exclusive domain of Atheists. Darwin was Presbyterian by faith and when aged denounced atheism because they had used evolution as a god substitute. Atheists have refused to believe the principles of design originated from a deliberate act of a designer mind. The Church thinking at the time of Darwin was, God couldn’t design creation where organic death reigned over all life; therefore there has been devolution. AIG are still influenced by such ideas.

I’ve used selective line breeding of dairy cattle and been involved in genetically modifying tomatoes, beans, soy, and melons with Dr Gottle, using radioactive isotopes. Endeavouring to knock out genes and introduce selected genes found in the fruit of the same species mutated, seedless, more tissue, higher oil content etc. External minds causing mutations to normal gene structures with purpose and design to selectively breed designer plants. God happens to use natural organic methods of breeding.

greg_m Quote, “Like many on ‘your side’ of the debate, you make a mistake by describing evolutionary theory as being simply random and accidental.
There is ‘purpose’ in natural selection: adaptation to and survival in a changing environment. This is what scientists refer to when they speak of ‘nature’s design’. There is certainly no long term ‘purpose’ to this evolution, or any progress toward fulfilling the goals of an external being.”

Greg; God is Spirit. So you have found purpose and design in natural selection, certainly a step in the right direction. Do you know of the end for DNA to draw a conclusion about its long term? Science tells us that the human genome is deteriorating because a higher percentage of offspring is from aged and diseased parents and not the most virulent of our seed. Reason: Because we have interfered with the principles of design to serve our own contraceptive purpose. There are design boundaries we need to respect for best practise; it is just that the human mind rebels (mutates) against moral law, and design principles because we assume natural law does not bind us within boundaries

Hey Philo, check out these other great creatures of God’s design: http://users.rcn.com/rostmd/winace/designed_organisms/index.htm
These must all be ‘our fault’ too.

This post is SMOTHERED in honey, .....

Greg, it certainly is a challenge to reconcile all of our 'Disney' upbringing concepts of how the world 'should' be, where Bambi always gets saved etc with the harsher realities of that site you offered, and which I read. It's points like that where I have to try to lift myself out of my own upbringing, and try to see some bigger purpose in what most of us would describe as 'horrible'. I don't know if much of that is related to the 'fall' of man, and the world, but its a possibility.

IAN you would not be the first to say "My life has meaning and I'm not depressed" and u won't be the last. Life without God in ones heart can be quite a happy and pleasurable experience for most of us.
Each time we achieve some major goal, or experience some beneficial or material advance, some relationship .. sure, it can be pretty ok.

But wait. theres MORE :) I can only say that having lived on that side of the fence, I concur with King Solomon in his assessment of life (See Ecclesiastes) "all is chasing the wind" and I further concur with the Apostle Paul who wrote

Philippians 4:6-7 - Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything, by prayer and petition, with thanksgiving, present your requests to God. And the peace of God, which passes all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Note the words "passes understanding" when it refers to the 'peace of God'. That- is what a person who does not yet know Christ is not aware of.

The father of Mark Bailey, who recently murdered the policeman and then killed himself, addressed our fellowship this morning. You would have to know Christ, to understand how people can deal with such a thing in their family. Tragic as it was, that special peace is present in their lives.

The site I offered above makes a simple point: if, as philo would have it, life on earth was designed by god, then this god must surely be a psychopath. The argument commonly put forward against this is 'the fall': it is 'our fault'. This is a 'possibility' just like it is a 'posibility' that my cat is from outer space. But it would be absurd to believe either of these suggestions when there is an explanation with a wealth of evidence behind it: all of life on earth has evolved - without external guidance - from a common ancestor over billions of years.

The people who think this means that there can be no moral law need to understand that ethics is about cooperation - a trait that has evolved in many species to aid in their survival. Human cooperation on a global scale does not require any magical external beings, just thinking humans.

David,
I agree.
As Jesus said to the persons accusing the parents of the boy born blind of sin, "This has happened that the glory of God might be revealed". So he healed him! The character of compassion and healing reveals the very nature of God in man.

Last weekend I saw an extract from the story of Ricky Holtz, born globally disabled, but his father not willing to abandon him to rot in an institution persevered until he could communicate through the use of a computer, and discovered his sons desire to participate in sports. His father took up marathon running pushing Ricky in a wheelchair to the his sons delight. The ultimate quest came when his father ran in the Hawaian Ironman Classic pulling him in a flotation devise, riding his bike with Ricky strapped in a seat over the front wheel and finally in the middle of the night pushing him in his wheelchair to arrive at 4am at the finish line to the applause of hundreds of people. Of all stories of human dignity and devotion this would be among the top. Mutated dissability is not a final failure, it can enhance the pinacle of human endeavour.

Back to Ben's article.

Some of his more controversial points:

1. Pascale's wager (already covered by others)

Like others I am absolutely dumbfounded that he would see this as a 'good argument'. Reveals a lot about his frame of reference.

2. his descriptionon of the fatherless Germans (due to WW1) as 'pathetic'.

Astonishing.

3. fatherless / abused people have some tendency toward atheism.

Speechless. Of course the implication being had they not been fatherless / abused, these great thinkers (at least) may have put their minds to other pursuits. Begs the question: so that's a ...good thing? Has Ben considered that maybe their insights are the reason they are considered great thinkers?

(continued next post)

(contd)

Terminology

Ben deliberately confuses by mixing his terms which is not helpful. Is he really only talking about 'militant atheists' as some posters would have us believe? But that would be silly, because militant anyones are obviously dangerous. If they are militants, does it really matter what brand they are?

He then switches to the term 'evangelical atheists'. How are they different from evangelical Christians? eg. John Knox who commanded: "None provoking the people to idolatrie oght to be exempted from the punishment of death...." Great guy!

Then another switch to the term "prominent atheist thinkers". So by now it's clear that ANY atheist can potentially come under the umbrella of the 'defective father hypothesis'.

And if we thought the slippery slope would finally end, Ben speeds up the evolution of language in record time: 'evangelical secularists' (ie those who staunchly defend the separation of church & state, and have the audacity to keep this in check). What, so now they've had defective fathers too? So now Jefferson's father is suspect.

He then asks "one wonders how famous Jewish and Christian intellectuals were raised?" One wonders indeed. But cast your eye over 'positive atheisms list of scary quotes' (google) and you have to ask: did these very prominent & numerous but intolerant (& occasionally bloodthirsty) Christians also experience the 'defective father hypothesis'? If not, well, that's even more scary.

I do agree with Ben on one thing. To those who give it out, it's only right and proper that they have a taste of their own medicine. This will help them to empathise if nothing else. ALTHOUGH, the church does have a vastly longer track record of evangelising, moralising & intruding. What comes around, goes around.