By the way - John Howard's comment the other day that we should all 'pray for rain' is simply unacceptable for the head of a secular government. He should keep his religious opinions to himself.

Besides, what difference does praying for rain make? Its net effect will be exactly zero. Perhaps we should all hold hands and dance naked around a may-pole as well.

TR, fully support your reasoning re the above topic.

As having gained a political science degree, as well as a post-grad in the general social sciences in my retirement years, am still determined to stay a liberal Christian from confidence gained in the rather radical reasoning of the 17th century English philosopher, John Locke, who was the main one to inspire the Glorious Revolution of 1688, giving royalty only second place in British governing institutions.

Some extracts from Locke's autobiography-

'Much of Locke's work is characterised by opposition to authoritarianism..... Especially in politics, Locke wants us to use reason to search after truth rather than simply acccepting the opinions of the authorities..... The positive side of Locke's philosophy is that he believes that using reason to grasp the truth rather than faith, will optomise human flourishing both in material and spiritual welfare.

It is also very interesting that it was mainly the liberal rather radical theories of John Locke which many years later gave the spur for the American War of Independence.

TR

1) >>…atheists and humanists are incapable of acting morally...<<

What I said in my opening remark is that we all can arrive at a same decision but from different moral standards.

Example we could both vote against abortion. My moral reason is because a human being is created by God in His image and therefore that precious life is sacred and must be protected.

Your decision could be because of the economic burden imposed on Medicare, or the potential health danger to women’s fertility, or similar…

2) Therefore I disagree with your opinion that atheists and humanists can be far more humane than monotheists.

3) >>Neither do atheists and humanists have to appease the whims of an angry 'sky-god' or follow bigoted 'holy' texts.<<

Your opinion again. Nothing to do with the God I know and worship.

4) >>In fact, it is the morality of the monotheistic religions which exists in a 'vacuum' because it is founded on a non-existent 'sky-god'.<<

Not facts – just your opinion. Don’t judge others by what you don’t have or understand.

5) On the other hand, the morality of an atheist and humanist is real because it is based on the scientific method.

Not so – science can only observe and explain what God has created long ago. According to your logic science has put stars in the sky and created the human body – because it can observe them.

6) John Howard's and 'pray for rain' comment.

I found that also unacceptable but for many other reasons. Prayer should be the first thing to do NOT an act of desperation when all other methods fail.

JH is now putting the blame on God instead of accepting his government's lack of action for the last decade or so.

JH as a self-proclaimed believer should have expected cynicism. Like you TR most equate prayer to wishful thinking or superstition… even well meaning politicians.

BTW – Christians have been praying for the water crisis and are still praying for farmers.

It’s all in God’s timing. So watch that space!

TR I too support your reasoning. It is not likely that a person who believes in God does not arrive at any moral conclusion without reference to that God and in particular in context of their particular branch or sect of their Faith. To suggest otherwise makes no logical sense whatsoever. Why believe at all if it is not going influence you?

For all people the questions on Why should I be good and How do I live a good life are intrinsically linked to what are their perceived consequences and rewards.

This is probably the main reason why Christians or Muslims find it hard to believe that atheists or humanists can be moral or indeed good. Because, why be good if you don't think anybody is watching you and make you pay?

It makes a discussion on some issues, such as, Abortion or Euthanasia between believers in God and non-believers a parallel discussion. There are no points intersecting.

This is why I prefer politicians to make a full and frank declaration on whether or not they believe in a God. That way I know how they are likely to vote on some issues on my behalf.

It frustrates me that a representative of mine could make legislative decisions that affect me on issues which I deem to be valid only to my personal spiritual and moral well-being.

TR
I agree, to say that atheists and humanists are incapable of acting morally is a little silly (although I don’t think that is quite what Coach said).

However, it is equally silly to then go on and say that ‘the morality of an atheist and humanist is real because it is based on the scientific method’, as if people of faith can’t or don’t think scientifically.

Using good morals is not the monopoly of people of faith, and using good science is not the monopoly of atheists.

You are barking up the wrong tree. Do I need to show you a list of men of strong biblical faith who founded scientific disciples (e.g. Newton, Mendel, Pasteur …etc.)? You speak of neuroscience as if a person of faith couldn’t understand it. It may surprise some that the pioneer of MRI technology which studies the brain, Dr. Raymond Damadian, is a biblical creationist.

Morals and science are both useful tools and anyone can use them. I could add faith to this list.

Now to define the word ‘secular’, I thought Coady in the article gave a pretty fair definition. But some here seem to confuse the idea of secular with the absence of religion, which is atheism. This is not what the word means. Atheism and Theism are on the same philosophical plane. To choose one is to relegate the other.

So if Howard says we should pray for rain, then some may be offended. But if he said, ‘we shouldn’t pray for rain because there is no God’, it would be the other side of the same coin, and a different group may be offended. So what is he to say? He may as well speak his conviction. So long as he doesn’t institute an official state religion, no one is any more for the worse.

Can they co-exist? The egg or the chicken fluff. Religion has been co existing with democracy since the times of ancient Greece. A more interesting picture is the number of countries that consider themselves democracies and the difference in the findings by Freedom House's Survey 2007. There is a big discrepancy between being free and not being freed by the exercise of democratic rule.