Peter Bowden made a reference to there being no organised charity conducted by atheists. Atheists are as likely to privately donate to worthy causes as anyone else. And, the environmental movement which saw all forms of life as having a right to exist for its own sake was launched mainly by atheists. Even now decades later the churches have only started to jump on the green wagon.

The thrust of Peter Bowden’s argument is that we need to have meaning in our lives. In other words fantasize about a meaning which is not there. Life has meaning when you stop focusing on yourself and help other humans [especially your own children] or dependent animals or even a struggling plant to better survive. No need for myths to feel good about your existence.

"Hitchens issues a challenge: “Name me an ethical statement made, or an action performed, by a believer that could not been made or performed by a non-believer”. His challenge, of course, is nonsense."
No, actually, your justification is nonsense, with the valid point made by the comment before mine...

So atheists 'destroy mankind's history, replacing it with empty nothing'? I guess the abolitionists faced the same argument in abolishing slavery. Aren't supernatural beliefs just intellectual slavery? What freedom is it to know that our future is in our own hands, it's all up to us. What a humbling, overwhelming thought - perhaps some are too scared to handle this basic truth, but like a child forced to leave home to grow into an adult, it has to happen.

Scared or not, humanity has no choice but to stand on its own two feet. No supernatural being will save us from the great problems that face us. If we don't save ourselves, who will? Indeed, when a hundred million Americans believe that 'the endtimes are coming' it is quite easy to understand how they have a president that has done more to contribute to the 'endtimes' than probably anyone in history. He stokes the fires of global warming and the clash of civilisations without a second thought because this is his god-given destiny!

And what have the religious institutions been doing? It took the Pope longer than this US President to acknowledge global warming! Quite an achievement!

Thanks, Peter, for a very thought provoking article. The greatest problems of the human race are the need of individuals to convince others that their view of the world is the only authentic view, and their quest to get others to live according to their own doctrine, or lack of same. Bigotry and intolerance of the beliefs, values and behaviours of others is the start of much of the unnecessary and destructive conflict in our world, be they demonstrated by fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims or atheists.

I've read Dawkins, Dennett, Hitchens and also (and very importantly) Sam Harris, and I have to say that I seem to have read different books to those read by this author.

As I say elsewhere (see http://smartmouthedmeddler.blogspot.com/2008/01/against-dogma-is-new-atheism-really-new.html), the primary target of the new atheism is not religion as such, but dogma - the belief that it is acceptable (even virtuous) to believe things on no or bad evidence.

Dawkins, Dennett and (particularly) Harris all indicate that they have little or no problem with deism, or Spinozaian pantheism or what Dawkins calls "Einsteinien religion"; and at least Harris, Dennett and Hitchens have indicated that they wouldn't necessarily want to see the synagogues, churches and mosques emptied, though they would want to see them abandon their metaphysical waffle.

As for the search for meaning being possible without belief in God, that is exactly the point being made by Sam Harris in the final chapter of his book, The End of Faith.

It really would be nice if critics of the "new atheists" would bother to actually read the books. That shouldn't be too much to ask, should it?

Re posts by healthwatcher and Chade, I believe Peter Bowden's point is that there are few, if any, specifically atheist charities providing these services (as opposed to secular charities which may or may not be full of atheists) - something that is difficult to dispute.

I agree that Dawkins' book is unnecessarily vitriolic against religion (while agreeing with his fundamental point that religion is not necessary for a full and moral existence). There is definitely a need for writings arguing against the current tendency to overplay the religious, particularly when the result is to denigrate those of other religions or none, but Dawkins (and apparently the others who I haven't read)lose their power by being over the top.

I myself am agnostic and while I am not anti-faith I am generally anti-religion. It's not the grassroots faith based activities that bother me, but rather when faith turns political and attempts are made to gain power and influence on the basis that one faith is worth more than others. Another bothersome aspect of religions is how they roll up faith, philosophy, culture and politics into one homogeneous monstrosity. The diversity of the human race will result in sharing views on some aspects and differing on others. It is quite possible, for example, for someone to share the philosophy, culture and politics with Christianity while not actually believing in god. It is the church based implication that not believing in god makes one evil that has elicited such knee-jerk anti-religious attitude from the free thinkers.

"His challenge, of course, is nonsense", after which you list some religous based charities. For non-religous charities you've got the red cross, greenpeace, austcare. There's plenty around.

"The failure to recognise the search for meaning ". It is not the search for meaning that is a problem, but rather the dictation of it to the masses.

Cazza, what did you find "unnecessarily vitriolic" about Dawkins book? I found it quite mild.

Perhaps you're perceptions are a bit distorted by the tradition of treating religion with kit gloves. Even temperate critics use far more robust terms than Dawkins does when they criticise opinions in politics, economics, philosophy, even natural science (see the robust terms in which physicists or biologists often debate each other). Yet when someone like Dawkins approaches religious opinions with the same standard of discourse, he's called "vitriolic".

I smell a taboo being broken here...

I am tired of the general public disposition that maintains that there is something special or sacred about religious belief that renders it in a category entirely separate to other forms of irrational belief, such as prejudice or madness. Why is it that people aren’t willing to demand the same level of respect and tolerance for prejudices such as sexism and racism which they demand for religious beliefs, even though the two kinds of beliefs are as irrational as each other?

Richard Dawkins aptly summarised the implications of society’s overweening respect for religion in The God Delusion: “If the advocates of apartheid had their wits about them they would claim – for all I know truthfully – that allowing mixed races is against their religion. A good part of the opposition would respectfully tip toe away. And it is no use claiming that this is an unfair parallel because apartheid has no rational justification. The whole point of religious faith, its strength and chief glory, is that it does not depend on rational justification. The rest of us are expected to defend our prejudices. But ask a religious person to justify their faith and you infringe ‘religious liberty’”.

Why is it considered acceptable to go to town on supporters of Pauline Hanson or neo-Nazis; to demonstrate no tolerance or acceptance towards these people whatsoever; to DEMAND that such people justify their irrational prejudices? But with regard to religious beliefs (which are no less irrational than the prejudices of neo-Nazis), we must simply ‘respect’ them. Why? Because they are religious of course!

Clearly, this answer crumbles under the weight of its own absurd hypocrisy.

Oh, and Mr Bowden, I think that if you were to actually read philosophers such as Nietzsche and Schopenhauer, you would find nothing 'gentle' or 'agnostic' about their criticisms of religion whatsoever...

“After coming into contact with a religious man I always feel I must wash my hands” – Nietzsche, Ecce Homo.

“Religion is the masterpiece of the art of animal training, for it trains people as to how they shall think” – Schopenhauer, Studies in Pessimism.

As much as it is good to see an article pulling the new atheism apart I cannot agree with the author’s central premise: that religion comes from human need of comfort or meaning. Speaking as a Christian theologian this puts the cart before the horse. We believe not because of human need but because a truth as been impressed upon us and for no other reason. O course the faith that comes from this is a comfort but even more it is discomforting. It is so in that it sees that all of our plans for comfort are for nothing and indeed any attempt to secure our lives against any contingency, even meaninglessness, will be shallow idolatry. For out God speaks to us from the future and upsets all of our plans. There is always a great danger in defending religion as though it were all the same, it is the same danger that the atheists fall into that gives them ample reason to discount the lot. In its purity, Christianity is a critique of all religions, any human attempt to grasp the divine. So, sadly, I find that the defence of religion is just the mirror image of its critique.

Peter Sellick

Atticus_the_Lawyer, my objection to Dawkins' book was that, whereas he spent pages and pages describing the appalling things done in the name of religion, he completely failed to address the really good things that people do because of their faith. Just because it doesn't require religion to be a 'good person', you can't conclude that religion never does any good.

I wish I could remember the details, but I heard a very interesting interview with a man who had spent a year living among different community groups in England and, contrary to his expectations (and indeed his goal), found that it was the religious ones who were doing much more to help others.

I am a non-religious person and happy to be called an atheist:

I did smile at a few sentences in Dawkin's God Delusion but generally thought he is biased and tageting where he could sell. Were I reviewing it -I have reviewed business texts and an academic journal- I would be suggesting sifnificant re-writing. A much better book on the Atheist view of how relegious views weas developed and alternative views of the creation given could have been provided by "discipline specialists| writing chapters with Dawkins merely as acting as the directing Editor. I fully agree with Dawkin's general lean but he is not an expert on everything. There were several mistakes and he could have added interesting naterial: the Hewbrews didn't move from polythesism to henothesism [Popkin el al] and Yewah was initially a tribal volcano god of war [Toynbee].

Atheists need to adopt a more investigative approach maintaining and testing tenative hypotheses, as do Theisists. Neither, should preach, rather debate the evidence

"And within that limitation they attack only the three Abrahamic religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity."

Nope - Hitchens has a good crack at Buddhism in "God is not Great." (pp. 198-204).

"None of them will admit that the cause of war may equally be in the winning of territory, power or resources."

Huh? You aren't reading the same books I have - the whole point of them is the way in which religious belief has been inculcated in the masses so that they can be used as cannon fodder for the political ambitions of the elite.

"Hitchens’ challenge is easily reversed: to identify any atheist run charity, replicated many times over, than gives help to the poor. Fortunate perhaps, that atheists are not into helping others in any organised way, given the evangelical vitriol with which the current atheistic writings condemn the beliefs of the majority of the human race."

Others have had a crack at this - it is a stupid challenge, because atheists don't "believe" in anything, by definition, without evidence, so why would they organise a charity based on that? Secular charities on the other hand are numerous, Medecins sans frontieres, in addition to those already named.

"Wonderful as these pursuits may be, they are pastimes, pleasant fill-ins, without a deeper meaning beyond the normalities of our daily lives."

Thank you for your (not so) humble opinion, because that's all that statement is. Many would argue that the pursuit of philosophy is an admirable way to fill a life and to give meaning to it.

"Until they contribute to that search, the anti-religionists will, I suspect, enjoy little success."

Unless of course, you count book sales. Apparently they have struck a chord with more than a few people?

(cont.)

Cazza: "Re posts by healthwatcher and Chade, I believe Peter Bowden's point is that there are few, if any, specifically atheist charities providing these services (as opposed to secular charities which may or may not be full of atheists) - something that is difficult to dispute."

It is difficult to dispute, because as I said above, it is a silly thing to say.

Ian D: "Bigotry and intolerance of the beliefs, values and behaviours of others is the start of much of the unnecessary and destructive conflict in our world, be they demonstrated by fundamentalist Christians, Jews, Muslims or atheists."

The atheists I know just want to be left alone by religion, and for religion to be excluded from running the state, which to a large degree it has in this country, thankfully. You can believe whatever you want but as far as determining how society should be run, history has done nothing if not demonstrate that religious faith has no place. Please refer to Meg Wallace's excellent article of the 16th of Jan - "Parliament is not a church."

Peter Bowden's is typical of the believer's arguments that depend on one's believing before they can be accepted.
There is nothing in his article which even makes me think "hey, he has a point there", except perhaps his desire to keep vitriolic comments to a minimum.
I remember hearing a colleague of Mother (Sister?) Theresa's being interviewed on ABC breakfast by (can't remember the name ... predecessor to Angela Catterns and went to 2GB) who revealed that Mother Theresa's aim was to do good on earth so that she might take a place in Heaven. Sounds like a pretty selfish attitude to me, and I have often wondered if the motive of other (religious) charity workers is the same.
Peter Bowden seems to be unable to reconcile a meaning to life without a god. "I am, therefore a god must have made me", seems to be his creed. Perhaps he is like a cousin of mine, who asked me who I prayed to, who I sought solace from, when I needed comfort. She, too, could not understand.

Contemporary atheism does not "destroy mankind's history, replacing it with an empty nothing". It requires that we look at history without the lens of theological bias; and it replaces it with human relations. It is incredible to denigrate human relationships to "nothing" as the author does.

Dennett does not need to explained how mythic practises transformed into monotheism. It was already explained almost one hundred years ago by Durkheim in "The Elementary forms of Religious Life".

Atheism and spirituality are not incompatible. For an interesting discussion of the possibility of religious atheists see D. Midbar's essay at

http://www.atheistprayer.blogspot.com

Religion started to unravel after WWII, when new translations of the Bible and the use of contemporary language in liturgies required “ordinary” worshippers to think about and try to understand what it all meant. When the - often sublime – aesthetic experience offered by ancient rituals, language and music in old churches was compromised, many thinking people were forced to substitute understanding and intellectual belief for faith. Once one begins to question the historical and intellectual basis for religion, it is difficult not to become increasingly aware of, and intolerant of, the many absurdities associated with organised religions. Once alerted to these, it is a short step to identify the sheer evil of so much “religious” activism.

Of course, agnosticism is seen as a cop out by atheists, but until someone can explain extra-sensory perception, ghosts and similar psychic phenomena, it is the only reasonable poison to take.

Not a bad piece actually. Generally, I'm the first to criticise articles that attempt to put religious morality ahead of secular, but I don't see this one doing that.

The comment:

"Religion gives support to millions. If our present day atheists want to fight for an extremely worthy cause - to eliminate the excesses of religion, they would be best advised to search for ways to reform the fundamentalists in the religions, along with fundamental atheists."

Is accurate. Similarly, his comment:

"If we search back through the atheist philosophies of the past, through Mill, Hume, Nietzsche, Schopenhauer, we find a questioning - a gentler, agnostic questioning. A clear condemnation of the excesses of religion, yes, along with sincere doubts about a personal God, but accompanied by an acknowledgement that we do not know."

Is also accurate. The key part, is the last phrase - "an acknowledgement that we do not know."

This indeed, is the central tenet here that everyone - atheist, christian, muslim needs to grapple with.

I couldn't help but reject the earlier comment by Sells, who said that religion was not derived from a need of comfort, rather that it was a "truth" impressed upon people. Of course, as an agnostic, this comes across to me as being nothing more than "because I said so."

Which, ultimately is the chief criticism I have of any religion, and ultimately, any statement about god that the speaker claims is accurate and irrefutable, with the sole exception of "we do not know" - this includes comments by militant atheists, saying god doesn't exist.

I have to agree with Peter Bowden there is no cast iron proof that God does not exist. Equally I see no need to postulate the existence of a deity (flying spaghetti monster) in any form. The onus of proof in my opinion is on the religious people to prove the existence of a God. So far through out the course of human history they have failed to do this. Bertrand Russell in his history of Western Philosophy sates that Aquinas had five proofs of Gods existence. Of course Aquinas did not attempt to provide an empirical demonstration of the reality of any God or Gods.

No doubt to the believer the existent of God is “self-evident.” For myself a belief in God is a clear absurdity. To Freud it was an “illusion.” To Dawkins it is a “delusion.” To the former a distorted sensory perception leading to a false belief. While the latter makes a stronger statement placing religious belief at the borders of psychopathology.

I intend to live and enjoy what ever remain years left to me with out adopting any of the numerous religious myths. I do not consider this to mean that I am immoral; that my life is empty; that I can not enjoy social relationships; appreciate art or whatever.

If Bowden or others wish to say my life is empty and void of purpose that is their prerogative. Frankly I do NOT give a dam. I will not suspend my right to critical thinking in the “hope of experiencing” the illusory comforts said (with out proof) to be offered by religion.

Error:

"the Hewbrews didn't move from polythesism to henothesism... -O.

Should be:

"the Hebrews didn't move from polythesism to mpnotheism"..."

Ancient ribal based religions tend to be henotheist, wherein over time their god becomes more important. Often iniyially as a war god to defeat enemies. After the war some practitioners want to change horses, because an agricultural communiy at peace does want/need a war god. Herein, one option is revert to polthesism, another is to become monothesists, but rewrite the history of the god.

It is also interesting to note that tribal gods are involved in Epiphanies. The High God will communicate Law directly with a tribal leader. Alternatively, the High God of a patheon does not communicate Law directly to we mere morals. Neither Zeus nor Amon-Ra would have made open contact with Moses [or Mohammed], as did Yehweh, the volcano god. Albeit, Yehweh did in Hebrew accounts of the the Cannanite Bal usurp El, Yehweh's father and by extrapolation God the Grandfather ;-)

The recent spate of marvellous books on atheism has been a welcome development for me, after years of being ear-bashed by religious people. At last, there is some balance in the public argument. I have read most of the books this author mentions and I have found them to be fair, interesting, intelligent and reasonable.

Religious people seem deeply threatened by atheists and are suspicious of our motives, but it is very, very simple. Some of us cannot believe in something that has no proof and no basis in reality. And that's it. Everything else flows from this simple, uncomplicated fact. I wish the point didn't have to be made again and again, but not believing in the supernatural does not mean we have no ethics; the two things are not connected in any way. Indeed, most of the people I mix with are atheists or agnostics and you would be hard-pressed to find a more kindly, sensitive or generous spirited bunch. And we help with charitable donations and otherwise pitch in where we can. Religious people do not have the monopoly on altruism.

I don't see why people have to rend their garments trying to find some sort of "meaning" that can, apparently, only have truth when associated with strange supernatural fantasies. The "meaning" is what we put into our own lives and how we interact with our loved ones, our friends and our colleagues. Trying to search for anything above and beyond that results in the creation of elaborate fantastical edifices. Of course non-believers are going to question these and find them ridiculous.

Peter Sellick, although you like to think of yourself as an esteemed “Christian theologian”, you are, in fact, nothing but a dogmatist par excellence. I mean, why do you even bother to engage in forums in which rational discussion is used to facilitate debate?? For it seems apparent that, for you, truth-statements require no rational justification at all. And if Truth is, as you say, simply a matter of sitting back and waiting to be “impressed” from above, then why do you persist in trying to win people over in forums like this? Why bother at all?!

Well, it turns out that I like your style of philosophising! Because we Pastafarians also believe that the Truth has been indelibly impressed upon us! The Truth of the Creator Himself… none other than His Noodliness, the Flying Spaghetti Monster (FSM)! And remember, Sells, just like you, no amount of reason or evidence contrary to our belief system is going to sway us from the Truth of His Noodliness. For we, too, are dogmatists! And no amount of solid reasoning or indisputable factual information or overwhelming and mounting evidence contrary to the Word of the FSM is going to dampen our belief in Him!

Atheism is not new. The Psalmist rightly wrote 'that a fool says in his heart that there is no god.' What is new is the ridiculous notion that science has somehow proved there is no god. Dawkin's and his like are more dogmatic towards his assumptions (like evolutionist) than most believers. The atheist often have more 'faith' than the believers. The ever changing theories on evolution make our Government back flips look minor in comparison. The idea that secular humanism is backed up by true science is absurd!

"What is new is the ridiculous notion that science has somehow proved there is no god."

Its amusing that you made a point that Dawkins would agree with.

"The ever changing theories on evolution make our Government back flips look minor in comparison."

Changing how one understands things in the light of new information is the rational way of behaving. Or do you still hold the same opinions you had when you were 12?

"The idea that secular humanism is backed up by true science is absurd!"

I think you're confusing philosophy and faith. Most religions combine the two, but atheism is solely about faith (or rather lack there of) and secular humanism is solely a philosophy; one backed by logical reasoning. Science is the study of the world as is, and makes not attempt to explain why, just merely how.

"Atheists need to adopt a more investigative approach maintaining and testing tenative hypotheses, as do Theisists. Neither, should preach, rather debate the evidence", says Oliver.

Oliver, that is rubbish. Atheists cannot prove the non-existence of something. Do you know the story of the black swans?

The burden of proof lies with the believers. All we have to do is show that they are wrong in their belief. Can you prove to me that Bertrand Russell's Brown Teapot does not exist? Further, I would not even ask you to "adopt a more investigative approach" in proving that it does not exist.

"In pubs members of the Salvation Army collect monies for their charities", the author says.

The Salavation Army also have the hypocracy to collect monies for their charities in Gay and Lesbian pubs. Yet they openly condemn the same people.

Another question that needs to be asked, how much of the money collected and the money earned on their massive investments, do the Salvation Army contribute to their community "Welfare" work.

A few years ago a UK TV journalist did an expose on charities, and it was revealed only 14% of the donation money the UK Salvation Army receives goes to their community "Welfare" work!

The existence of god is irrelevant.I consider the deepening of the understanding of our own nature and our place in the cosmos,warts and all,would be a good place to start.You don't deepen your intellect by sucking up to a father figure in the hope of a better life.
The god concept and atheism are probably both short of the mark.I think that most people have two bob each way,they don't think most religions are factually credible,but the feel good factor of all powerful father figure,gives emotional comfort.Because of emotional security it affords us ,religion will never disappear,however it should never be allowed to have absolute power in our Govts.There is no proven connection between religious organisations and their perceived higher authority.Religion should never be allowed to over ride logic or proven facts.

Many of you are confusing the meaning of “purpose” as something that has been assigned by a higher power.

For example, what is the purpose of the North Star? Was it put here to guide early mariners, or did they simply learn that they could use it to navigate? It had no “purpose” until we decided to use it for one. Human life is the same way. We have no assigned purpose from a god, nor does life have any assigned or intrinsic meaning. We do, however, create our purposes and meanings through interaction with others. The purpose of a teacher is to educate; the meaning of parenthood is to raise ethical children.

Realizing that we are responsible for creating our own purposes and meanings is a vastly richer experience than simply falling back on the bronze-age concept of “God wants me to act like this.”

Please don’t waste the tiny sliver of life you have on Earth because you somehow think you’re going to get another one. You’re not. One per customer, please, and enjoy it to the fullest; morally, ethically and completely.

there's something very strange about bowden's article. i'll agree there's a nasty edge to dawkins and hitchens (haven't read the others), but that's really beside the point. and their attacks on religion are really beside the point. the issue is that religion perhaps gives "meaning" to millions of people. but what does that meaning really mean if it is premised upon almost certain falsehoods? it obviously means something. but what?

bowden's 50-50 comment that "nobody can present believable proof either way" is a ridiculous summary of dawkins, and disgraceful pussyfooting from a purported philosopher. unless bowden addresses honestly the compelling reasons for doubting religious beliefs, he cannot honestly address the meaning such beliefs might give, or the dangers such beliefs might bring.

finally, bowden implictly suggest that if meaning doesn't come from religion, then it is arbitrary. so, arbitrary religious belief is not arbitrary (bowden doesn't distinguish religions). but, the attempt to free oneself of comforting fairy tales, to think clearly and honestly of the human condition, that's arbitrary? amazing.

I like the following from Feuerbach.

It is not as in the Bible, that God created man in his own image. But, on the contrary, man created God in his own image.

Let me see if I've understood the writer's thoughts correctly ...

1. The jury's still out on the existence of god question.
2. Most of humanity is preempting the jury's determination by joining one camp or other: the atheists have occupied the camp which expects the jury to find that god doesn't exist, and the believers have occupied the other.
3. The believers have further organised themselves into religions.
4. The atheists are highly critical of three of these religions. Their criticism is described as viciousness.
5. The atheists' main criticism regarding "the bellicose history of religion" is deflected with the claim that there are other causes of war apart from religion.
6. The atheists are further discredited with the claim that no organisations doing good works are headed by atheists.
7. Religions must be tolerated because they represent the instinctive human "search for meaning", "against the fear of the unknown". Also, they provide comfort. These features outweigh all the negative aspects noted by the atheists.
8. Atheist philosophers are particularly at fault when attacking religion, because they are not searching for meaning. They will have "little success" because they are not searching for meaning.
9. Gentle "agnostic" questioning is OK.

350 words is not enough to address these points. In any event, I think the problems are fairly obvious.

Essentially the article appears to take the view that only people who are involved in "the search for meaning" are qualified to criticise religions. This view needs significantly more grounding than is provided here.

HarryG,

Please see:

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1374&page=30
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=1374&page=31

If armchair behavioural scientists disagreed with Freud and Jung but did not proactively address the fallacies, as did Karl Popper, we would still be treating Little Han's fear/phobia of horses as being frightened the animal's/father's penises,oedipus conflicts, and the horse cart leaving a yard analoguous to passing a bowel motion, instead of using say systematic desentitisation [Wolpe 1958] and pharmacology. Had sitters just said Freud & Jung are wrong, stop. They have to prove their approaches, stop. We will just wait, stop.

Ref:

http://www.holah.karoo.net/freud.htm
http://www.phobialist.com/treat.html

The Book on Hans and case study are more detailed than in the above link. My comments are based om student studies about Hans at the University of Sydney

"...they attack only the three Abrahamic religions, Islam, Judaism and Christianity."

Each author deals with why they only approach the Abrahamic traditions (usually in the Prefaces). That reason is that 99% of religious people in the English-speaking world worship some form of the Abrahamic God. You are implying that writing something that applies to its intended target demographic is unjust. That is absurd. It also reveals something else about your case. Either you didn't read all these books (which makes you wrong to insinuate that you did) or you are setting up a straw man to deliberately mislead the people who may read your editorial and have not read these books. Either way, you're wrong and intellectually dishonest.

"None of them will admit that the cause of war may equally be in the winning of territory, power or resources. Nor in the megalomania of unfettered rulers."

Another strawman for your ignorant readers or did you just not read any of these books? This is a blatant falsehood, and it would dishonest for any person to claim absolutes about war and relgions role in it throughout history. To thinks that religion is the sole cause of war and suffering is just as absurd as you make it out to be... and these authors don't do that. Interesting how you don't have a quote for us here to back up your case... Strawman indeed.

"Hitchens issues a challenge: “Name me an ethical statement made, or an action performed, by a believer that could not been made or performed by a non-believer”. His challenge, of course, is nonsense. Ten minutes walk from where this writer lives is a church that feeds the lost and homeless daily. Scattered over this city are church-run refuges, homes for the elderly, and community assistance programs. In the pubs members of the Salvation Army collect money daily for their charities."

Missed his point, eh? Plenty of secular charities do the same things without your God. Hitchens was saying that it is possible to be secular and good. Religious people don't have a monopoly on kindness.

"Hitchens’ challenge is easily reversed: to identify any atheist run charity, replicated many times over, than gives help to the poor. Fortunate perhaps, that atheists are not into helping others in any organised way, given the evangelical vitriol with which the current atheistic writings condemn the beliefs of the majority of the human race."

Any charity that is secular fits this category. Here in the US, we have many... And atheists don't have to organize. Most of us don't for any other reason that to protect our rights from fools. Just like you wouldn't have a charity made up only of non-Unicorn believers, an "atheist" charity would be just as arbitrary.

"Religion has given meaning to millions, since time immemorial."

This argument is tired. If it isn't true, than the meaning is fiction. If you want to live in a self-delusion, that is your business. But keep it to yourself. I live in the real world. And in the real world, we did evolve from "primordial slime" over billions of years. The meaning of life is to survive and procreate. Anything else I attribute to my life's meaning (like love, children, happiness) is subjective. I have no problem with that, and neither do any of us non-brainwashed types. We're not afraid to face to universe for what it is.

Oliver

It's pretty hard to respond to such elegant and well-reasoned arguments. In fact, I can't. I have not got the knowledge nor the intellectual skills to respond; I am simply unable to confirm or deny, agree or disagree with what you have said.

But still, despite your explanations, I believe that it is impossible to prove the non-existence of something. I am stubborn as well as stupid.

And further more, I do believe I have made a post without a spelling error, so anybody reading this will not be sidetracked from my point. At least, I will have been able to teach you something, even if I have not been able to learn from you.

Kind regards ....

"The failure to recognise the search for meaning is a criticism that must be levelled primarily at the philosophers among them, Onfray and Dennett. They are from the discipline that has, for 2,000 years, been asking this question of our meaning, our identity."

Amongst the confusions in your article, Dr. Bowden, this one stands out. The meaning of your life is not something to be searched for, but somethng to be decided upon, to be chosen. It is a matter of the values that you commit yourself to, that you seek to run your life by.

You may well cast around, and seek guidance, before committing yourself. You may well change your mind as you attempt to live by them. You would hope anyway to deepen your understanding of what you choose--which is a form of changing your mind.

Even if (contrary to what I think we can prove) we are created by a god
and not by our parents), that does not relieve us from the choice. God may have His values, but we still would have to decide whether they were good ones. (On the evidence of the Bible and the Boxing Day tsunami, they are decidely mixed.)

I had to smile......

Atticus the lawyer said:

<<the belief that it is acceptable (even virtuous) to believe things on no or bad evidence.>>

Att...did you buy your lawyers licence in 'Bi Lo'? :)

The 'evidence' for Christ, and the Biblical documents, is one of the best established facts on earth.... Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law school co founder subjected the Gospels to the 'rules of evidence' and did not find them wanting. (yes..he was a Christian, but also a highly respected lawyer who would have been ridiculed by his peers had he 'fixed' the outcome)

The philosopher Alistair McIntyre demonstrated how to disprove the existence of a theistic God in the 1960's. There are certain requirements for a god to be worthy of worship. In McIntyre's view, he had to be omnipotent, omniscient and perfectly good. A being lesser in any of these respects would not be appropriate for worship at all.

But there are empirical reasons to deny the existence of such a god--in the existence of great evils, not produced by humans.

In my view, the argument does not require the perfections McIntyre supposes. For it to make sense to adore, to thank or to praise God, he has to be agential--He has to be able to act, and to actually do things. And those actions must be consistently good. He must at lest be aware of the state of the world in the spheres where He can act. And He must act whenever it is morally required that He do so. It is plain, as a matter of experience, that He does not.

You can't by such an argument show that there is no powerful, morally flawed being in charge of the universe. You can show that such a being is not a god.

Yes, there are replies to the problem of evil. Most of them involve attributing despicable values to God--like the claim that the tsunami was sent as a warning or as a punishment; or that we could have avoided the lose of life if we had developed an early warning system. The remaining ones (or those that I am aware of) are not adequate to excuse the evils that exist.

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

For context see:

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/koran-idx?type=DIV0&byte=282392

This is the creator of the universe speaking?

The creator of the universe instructs his followers when and under what circumstances they are to slaughter "idolaters?"

Note the 9:5 is prescriptive. It does not say when it is PERMITTED to slaughter the "idolaters." It is an EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION to slaughter the "idolaters" under certain circumstances.

Note that the authenticity of the koran is a central tenet of Islam. The creator of the universe supposedly instructed an angel to dictate the koran verbatim to a seventh century Arabian warlord.

Who decides who qualifies as an idolater worthy of slaughter? Why the followers of Allah, the creator depicted in the koran?

Is there an entity that could be described as the creator of the universe?

I don’t know. Consider me a sceptical agnostic.

But, if there is a creator, does he / she / it / they bear any resemblance to the petty, vengeful, megalomaniacal little tyrant depicted in the koran?

Give me a break.

Unsurprisingly the character of Allah is the character of a 7th Century warlord which is what you would expect given the authors of the koran.

And this really is where appeals from people like Peter Bowden fall down. Yes religion has given meaning to the lives of many. Yes many people have been inspired to do great deeds of charity as a result of their religious beliefs. Yes atheists are not noted for their charitable deeds.

But then we are faced with explicit instructions to slaughter supposedly emanating from the creator of the universe?

Gullible does not begin to describe what it takes to believe the creator of the universe would dictate 9:5.

Boaz, I'm amazed you insist on perpetuating this myth.

>>The 'evidence' for Christ, and the Biblical documents, is one of the best established facts on earth.... Simon Greenleaf, a Harvard Law school co founder subjected the Gospels to the 'rules of evidence' and did not find them wanting<<

As I've told you before, Simon was not a co-founder of Harvard Law School.

Also, he was not just any old Christian, but according to Dr. Bill Long:

"Greenleaf was a lifelong Episcopalian, an Evangelical Episcopalian in the 19th century meaning of that term, who always was very involved in the life of his church and his diocese... active in the Massachusetts Bible Society... wrote tracts for the American Tract Society... active in promoting theological education... drew up constitutions and bylaws for these schools... a leading force in the American Colonization Society, which was committed to repatriating American Blacks to Liberia as a way to "solve" the slavery problem. That is, Greenleaf was a powerful spokesman his entire adult life for themes, movements and concerns that motivated the 19th Century Evangelicals."

This would be crystal clear, if you ever read any of his "evidence".

He starts halfway down the back straight:

"The proof that God has revealed himself to man by special and express communications... has already been shown, in the most satisfactory manner, by others."

He further tilts the playing field:

"Every document, apparently ancient, coming from the proper repository or custody, and bearing on its face no evident marks of forgery, the law presumes to be genuine, and devolves on the opposing party the burden of proving it to be otherwise."

So his starting point is that a) God caused the gospels to be written, and that b) they are, by definition, genuine.

With that as the starting point, it is hardly surprising that he was able to prove they were a) divinely inspired and b) genuine.

By the way, have you actually read Greenleaf? I have, and I strongly suggest that you do before you refer to him again.

Fat chance, eh?

Surely any concept of god would admit that he/she/it is inestimable, unknowable. At best, only aspects of who or what could be “seen’.

Atheism is not a new phenomenom. Atheists, Jews and Christians have all contributed to modern science - even to the theory of evolotuion. Christians and Jews have found no conflict between their beliefs and evidence. (I do not include fundamentalists).

A physicist, and a “card carrying” atheist, told me he saw god in a physics equation. He explained. The beauty and elegance of this equation was “inexpressible” ... This man certainly did not undergo any epithany of religious conversion; this is the only way he could convey his meaning.

I know little about Muslims and their beliefs as regard particular sciences or evolution. However, I know a cultured Muslim whose kindness and actions have nothing to do with any expected reward of 72 virgins in the afterlife.

Neither atheists nor religions have a monopoly on kindness, nor generosity (whether of spirit or materially), nor of concern for others. I doubt if many of religious belief actually contemplate that they are racking up browny points for heaven: they may feel they have to atone for some injustice they have committed. This is not the same.

Undoubtedly, religion has caused misery; but it has also produced the most sublime of arts and of abstract, and of metaphysical thought. One cannot study the past without also including study of its religion. Scientists who study the primitive emergence of art believe it had religious meaning. It would be very difficult to separate the history and culture of mankind from religion.

cont ...

Perhaps it is the conviction of an afterlife that is the problem - the risks being of those who do (or) do not act, based on such a belief. This can lead to fatalism, where recognition of another’s suffering gives way to: “it’s god’s will ... but, they have earned a crown in heaven”; it can lead to suicide and killing: “I have killed; become a martyr for my god ... thus am assured of a divine reward.”

How many of us know whether our friends adhere to a religious belief, are atheists, or agnostics. Does it really matter? I was very surprised to find that a friend had a doctoral degree in theology. It does me no credit to admit that “I was surprised”.

Geez. I've been jumping up and down with my hand up in the air like an over-eager schoolkid ever since reading, somewhere back around page 2 of these comments, someone hypothesing about "what-if" apartheid was tied to religion?

That's exactly what made apartheid so evil! Afrikaaners, using the same bible that other mainstream Christians use, use it "prove" that system is what god intended.

When I was living in South Africa there were 6 million white people there: the majority were Afrikaans. So the rejection of apartheid meant for them a rejection of god's word. Indeed it was considered heretical for them to consider the breaking down of apartheid as this was tantamount to the rejection of the Christian god.

The dichotomy in all this (to me, anyway) is that missionaries spent years of their lives and millions of Rand trying to convert the very black people who would suffer from their religion. Even though no black people were permitted inside a whites only church.

It's perhaps behavious such as this that makes so many people so very "vitriolic" towards towards Christianity.

To my mind, anyone unaware of some of the excesses of the apartheid system and who reads up on the atrocities that were committed by decent church-going christians because their bible gave them the "proof" of their righteousness, cannot but become somewhat jaded about the question of the innerency of the bible. Nor question exactly what proofs are available from it.

Danielle (which I think is the most beautiful of all names!) asks:

"How many of us know whether our friends adhere to a religious belief, are atheists, or agnostics. Does it really matter?"

This is a good question, and one which I used to answer in the negative (many years ago). But nowadays, I have come to realise that it really does matter.

Someone who is not atheist must be someone who can suspend rational belief, and can come to conclusions based on a faith rather than a fact. Can we really have any confidence in a decision that that person might make?

We have seen how people act in the name of religion, and we also have seen religious people in power (let's choose Tony Abbott as a 'frinstance') use that power to impose his religious beliefs on all of us, thus making all of us subject to his religion. There are millions of examples. My (Catholic) cousin believes we should do nothing about climate change because the state of the planet is in the hands of her god. Was such a thought as this in the back of Howard's and Bush's minds which caused them to delay accepting the notion of global warming?

So yes, Danielle, it DOES matter. We atheists should be true to our religion and not take up arms to defend our position, but keep on engaging the opposition in friendly and rational discussion. Thus, we will eventually win.

When we meet in Hell, Danielle, please say hello.

The trouble with athieism is that it has evolved as a reactionary philosophy to godism.We humans assume too much.Just because we perceive ourselves to be the most intelligent species on the planet,thus we assume that our consciousness will progress beyond our mortal shackles.
The cosmos as revealled by our scientific minds is non ordinary,with the discovery of black holes,the possibility of parralell universes and even Einstiens's E=MC squared,where he demonstrates that space time and matter are interdependant.These are magical concepts that our ordinary reality cannot fully grasp.

There well may be a human connection with the laws that govern the universe as we know it,but we cannot assume that we are important enough at this stage of our evolution to have some divine connection.
It is our tenuous memory that joins the past with the present,and when that is gone,so is our conscious present being.
I have no memory of existing past lives or predictions of the future.If you want to know,study the religion of skeptical science,of tried and tested hypothesis that assumes nothing.

In the realm of improbability,believe nothing of what you hear and only half of what you hear.This is why I have no faith in the traditional religions.Science is a far more logical and dynamic religion, which has provided,and will continue to provide more insight and dynamic solutions to our dilemmas.

You can be spiritual in the sense in wanting to aspire to a higher plane of intellect,but that does not mean reward of eternal blissful being with some father figure.Take life for what it is with all it's limitations,and enjoy the moment.

I agree the good feeling and the meaning a believer gets from their belief does not help convince anyone that God exists. So, that’s a weakness in Bowden's argument. When he says there are no atheist aid agencies, I think he’s saying that to be an atheist is not in itself very interesting: is one a capitalist atheist, or a socialist one, for example? A greedy one or a modest one? Etc. This is why there are no atheist aid agencies: atheism itself doesn’t amount to anything positive or constructive. “Secular” agencies exist, but they have a mixed membership – so their existence is no thanks to atheism.

I don’t mean atheists are bad, or anything like that. I mean their virtues – their interest in humanity’s welfare etc – are separate from their atheism. They are likely to be humanists, but they don't have to be, do they?

Beyond that, I’m with Sellick – re the impression God makes on the believer. I don’t agree with the posters who say the onus of proof is on the theists. At least, not in the way they mean. When a theist comes up against empiricist scepticism – “evidence please” – the theist is pretty stuck, apart from the Scriptures, but that’s not surprising because the theist is usually not an empiricist. I know people “selling God” have an onus, but that doesn’t mean they have to be empiricists. They have to “impress”, in the way Sellick refers to, not prove. The idea of empirical proof is artificially narrow, and there is no reason why an atheist should adhere to it.

The problem with the atheists I’ve read is their assumption that empiricism is true, and that it’s the only reasonable way of thinking. I don’t think they have to prove there’s no God, but I think they have to provide a reason for calling theists “irrational”, instead of just repeating it ad nauseam. I know it’s because they are themselves empiricists, but I think they should attempt to establish empiricism (or at least recommend it!), instead of just assuming it.

Pax,

The title of Dawkin's book says it all 'The God Delusion'.

Anyone who believes in a God is deluded - that is, they are suffering from a mental health problem. It will not be long before these deluded people will be rounded up to be suitably 'corrected' thereby completing the circle that Dawkins et al claim they are exposing.

MyT wrote: it is possible to be secular and good.
An example of this perhaps to be found in the foll info?
37 year-old Indian Lenin Raghavarshi, atheist, communist, human rights activist, tells AsiaNews that he is in favour of the moratorium on abortion: “At the basis of all human rights is the right to live”.
“Malthus – Raghavarshi explains - promoted the theory that the main problems of the world like poverty and other such inhuman situations of the marginalized are due to population, but this is completely unscientific idea and false theory.”

goodthief, can you give examples of the kind of fundamentalist empiricism you suggest some atheists engage in? i guess i can see the potential for the type of absolutist thinking you suggest, but i don't see either dawkins or hitchens in this way. for example, dawkins talks a lot about the sort of aetherial concept of "god" - the overall sense of pattern and meaning - as used by einstein and others, and he has no complaint about this.

it seems to me the issue is when religious claims become tangible ("mother teresa performed miracles") or prescriptive ("god doesn't approve of homosexuality"). in such cases, it seems to me that atheists, and everyone, has every right to question the reasoning behind such beliefs.

Without fact, all you have is fiction. Those that beleve in fact, are with out a doubt, are in the here and now. All yous people that still thinks that GOD will save you, keep dreaming! Just sit back and watch and listen. Religion has sered its purpose! Are you that far behind.

Sorry about the spelling! Iam just human! Natures laws are simple, and all evidence you need, is staring you right in the face.

Go and hide under a rock, if that makes you feel better, but human needs, is a question that needs to be answered.

After reading all the responses to this rather gentle article, I felt no compulsion to speak, particularly as the Atheist side is so well represented; Goodthief -and Sells, of course- persuaded me otherwise.
To me, Dawkins' most telling point was that of faith.
Essentially, the three religions mentioned all rely heavily -if not totally- on faith, and faith is quite simply a means by which the Sellicks and Boaz's of this world can say:
"I'm right. I'm indisputably, unquestionably right, and what's more, I don't even have to prove it because, hey! I've got faith!"
These people actually take pride in the fact that no rational argument, no empirical proof (if such a thing could exist) could ever sway them, as that would involve a loss of faith -and that, of course, is as great a crime as blasphemy.
grim@thecomensality.com

Hello Bushbasher. Everyone who calls a theist “irrational” simply because the theist believes in something that cannot be empirically proved is what I would call a pretty hard-line empiricist. You might simply prefer “consistent empiricist”. I would save “fundamentalist” for the rude ones, like the authors under discussion, simply because they’re rude. My point is that, if you’re going to impose empiricism on the debate, you (not you, personally) need to say something to establish its credentials. Dawkins at least doesn’t do this, or even make an attempt to. I think he should.

I agree that Dawkins is happy enough for people to wax lyrical about the cosmos – to use language that sounds religious – so long as they don’t really mean it. Like Einstein. But, this is just lyrical atheism.

Dawkins is also less annoyed with deism, but he still regards this non-interventionist creator-God as unprovable (because it’s supernatural) and the deist as therefore irrational. It’s just that Dawkins sees deism as less dangerous than religious belief. And I suppose he’s right: but, then, I’m not saying religion is safe, I’m saying God exists.

The negative aspects of religion discredit it, but they don’t affect the question of God’s existence. For all I know, God is gnawing on His knuckles with rage as much as any atheistic critic of religion is. Similarly, Dawkins’ rudeness only discredits atheism in the populist sense: logically speaking, he might be right about the God question, but just rude.

I'm very happy for religion, and theism generally, to be critiqued. My fellow Christians do it all the time, from inside. I also know there are too many religious people who don't, and the dangers this leads to. This is true of all ideologies, I think, including the more aggressive atheist ones. Dawkins et al do way more than critique: they attack, and it's not going to make things any better.

Pax,

goodthief, i'm honestly not sure what the alternative is to empiricism. i'm happy to agree that our senses and our reason can only take us so far in understanding the human condition, that we should be humble about what we claim to understand. but what else is there? in what way is religious belief not still based upon our senses and our reason?

is religious belief irrational? i guess by its nature it's necessarily non-rational. but it seems to me that the belief also has the potential to be irrational in two ways. first the fundamental belief can simply be absurd: i would assume you'd agree that belief in the flying spaghetti monster is irrational. secondly, religious belief can collide with the empirically provable: for anyone to now believe that the earth is 6000 years old is irrational.

religious belief cannot be be spared rational scrutiny, but i admit i'm unclear on the ground rules. except, as i wrote in the previous post, the more tangible or more prescriptive the belief, the greater the burden of rationality. i have no objection to your saying god exists unless you tell me what that means. BUT, depending what you tell me, i may have every right to object to your belief as irrational.

finally, the only real objection i can glean is that dawkins is rude. i'm sorry, but i think that's neither here nor there. dawkins' rudeness does not compare in seriousness to bowden's shallowness.

Danielle, you say "any concept of god would admit that he/she/it is inestimable, unknowable. At best, only aspects of who or what could be “seen’".

I'm not sure what you mean by the second sentence, but the first is a well known mistake. If there is nothing that we can say that is literally true of God, then the word 'God' is empty of all meaning.

In spite of frequent assertions to the contrary, science does play a role in this debate. Not that it proves or disproves the existence of God, for science cannot prove or disprove anything. At best, it gives us good reason to prefer one hypothesis to another. But science gives us reason to prefer naturalistic explanations to claims that God is responsible for many phenomena which were once thought to be God's doing. Science thus substantially weakens the argument from design for God's existence.

It used to be said (in the 60's) that Christians should not treat God as an explanation for what could not otherwise be explained, since inevitably explanations would be found for many of those things. The 'God of the gaps' would be a discredited hypothesis.

But if belief in God explains nothing, then God is totally inactive--not a god at all. Science is constantly a threat to theistic belief.

"But science gives us reason to prefer naturalistic explanations to claims that God is responsible for many phenomena which were once thought to be God's doing."

Can't you then argue that God is responsible for the naturalistic systems that created the phenomena, and therefore responsible for the phenomena itself?

"Science is constantly a threat to theistic belief."

Science is a threat to dogmatic religious belief. But since "god" can be defined as beyond any systems that science can observe, science cannot be a threat to all theistic belief.

Examples:
'We plough the seed and scatter
The good seed on the land.
But it is fed and watered
By God's almighty hand.

He sends the snow in winter,
The warmth to swell the grain,
The seedtime and the harvest,
And soft refreshing rain.'

Well, no, he doesn't. At best you can claim that He set the process up.

'The rich man in his castle,
The poor man at the gate,
He made them high and lowly'
And gave them their estate.'

The verse is no longer sung, because it is now known to be false.

People claim that they have experience of God--that he confronts them in an overwhelming experience--at the communion, say, or Yom Kippur. But if there is a psychological explanation of religious experience, and if (if) there is good reason to prefer it, then the experience is delusional.

The long lines of disappointed people that I saw walking or being wheeled away from the spring at Lourdes are testimony to the interpretation of the suposed miracles that occur there, that they are psychological phenomena. Why would a God be so irrational as to cure only a few of those who drink the water? Why would He prefer people who crawl on their knees, carrying their sick babies, down the long paved slope at Fatima, to those who merely pray for help?

(You have to hand this much to the Catholic Curch, though. In spite of their fostering of belief in miracles, they also staff hospitals at Lourdes, to give sick people proper attention.)

Being PC...

God or Godo? :-)

"[Com. Teut.: OE. god (masc. in sing.; pl. godu, godo neut., godas masc.) corresponds to OFris., OS., Du. god masc., OHG. got, cot (MHG. got, mod.Ger. gott) masc., ON. go, gu neut. and masc., pl. go, gu neut. (later Icel. pl. guir masc.; Sw., Da. gud), Goth. gu (masc. in sing.; pl. gua, guda neut.). The Goth. and ON. words always follow the neuter declension, though when used in the Christian sense they are syntactically masc. The OTeut. type is therefore *guom neut., the adoption of the masculine concord being presumably due to the Christian use of the word." - OED Unabridged.

Hi goodthief

It shouldn't be necessary to point this out to you, but it is.

You said: "This is true of all ideologies, I think, including the more aggressive atheist ones. Dawkins et al do way more than critique: they attack, and it's not going to make things any better."

Atheism is not an ideology, any more than the absence of belief in astrology is an ideology. I am not defined by my non-belief in your deity. You may choose to define me that way but I do not accept it.

Another point, yes you are right, Dawkins, Hitchens et al are quite rude about religion. I think it stems from a deeply felt disgust as they (and I certainly feel this too) look around the world and observe the atrocities committed in the name of religions (especially Islam). It is as simple as that. Theirs is a cry for the primacy of reason, and it has struck and continues to strike, a resounding note with a great many people - check out the bestseller lists.

If Dawkins is "vitriolic" merely because he states his honest, well thought through ideas without pulling punches or pandering to existing powers, then the churches are well overdue a shake-up.
The fact that churches systematically protect child molesterers and lie about drugs and porn (thus making these problems much worse), removes all "rights" to push the truth.
Are religious folks not aware that all large crimminal organisations use charity to offset visible crimes, so the charity argument really doesn't wash?
It was obvious to me as a child that one could have "faith", or one could seek truth: Both can not exist in one brain without insanity. Thank God :-) my parents gave me a few years to think clearly! I was NOT rased as athiest: "make up your own mind" and "respect others" was all they had to say. It soon became clear that "make up your own mind" is the enemy of all faiths. I got sick of being attacked by the ignorant (Yes, they actively "ignore" truth!) and was so glad Dawkins had the courage to stand up and say what had to be said. To the religious folk who question the athiest "backlash", it is pent up frustration with kiddie fiddlers lecturing us about morality, sheer stupidity trying to overrule expertise (ID vs Science), etc.
It is clear that religion has purpose in a society with strong authority and little knowledge, such as ancient europe and modern trailer parks. It is also clear that we cannot allow the devolution of the intellect to have the power and confidence to destroy that it currently does.
If the athiests are getting scary, consider it self-defence from the next witch-hunt. Want to make your version of a 2000 year old legend look less ridiculous to the outsiders? Be nice to people (try listening to your own prophets!), don't try to use power to counter knowledge. Evil people use power to spite truth. Evil done in the name of religion is getting kind of common, so it is time the religious folk justified the special treatment that they expect.

Hi Bushbasher. I don’t think Dawkins’ rudeness is the end of the world either - just that it’s out of order and counterproductive. And hypocritical as he loves to accuse religious people of behaving badly. Still, I agree there are more important things to discuss.

My main objection is that empiricism is assumed, rather than established.

Generally speaking, the religious people I know are just as rational as the non-religious (agnostic etc) people I know. We start from a different premise – God existing – and proceed just as rationally as anyone else.

It’s that premise that we disagree about. I think the premise is only “irrational” if it is accepted that sense/evidence-based knowledge is the only legitimate form of knowledge. I don’t accept this limitation. I have no reason to believe in the flying spaghetti monster, so I see it as a flying red herring.

The alternative to empiricism is something broader, that includes empiricism. I call faith being open to everything that is true. It’s riskier than empiricism, but it gives one access to everything. And it gives one’s right hemisphere something to do.

Your point is so interesting that my position gets more difficult as it becomes more detailed and prescriptive. I have to give this some thought. For what it’s worth, I’m often at pains with other Christians to urge them to be less “certain”, ie less inclined to impose their specific notions/interpretations on others. I see it as the height of presumption for, say, a Christian to say they know God’s will for certain.

The Bible helps, despite its notorious trouble spots (which I see as challenges to the believer, not blockages to belief). Mind you, I take your point that actual collision with proved facts is fatal.

Hi Stickman. I understand the rage, but it doesn’t justify the vitriol – esp as the vitriol is so lucrative! The aggressive atheistic ideology I have in mind is communism. Not that they killed because they’re atheists: the point is, God was removed from the equation, and slaughter still occurred.

Pax,

Dear Stickman,

As an athiest, I have read Dawkins and was unimpressed. I have edited an academic journal and contributed to texts. He seems to write to the convinced and "indewells" [Polanyi] in the topic as having a prior conclusions, without citing sound argument. Relionists do ths too, citing scripture and indwelling in mass/religious services.

Two easy examples: Dawkins does explain how henothesis [doesn't evem use the word] becomes monothesism through evolution. Churches and even TV perpetuate the claim Pilate was a "Proconsul". He wasn't he was a "Prefect". There was no "Proconsul" in the Holy Lands area until the Jewish opposition to Roman occupation increased c. 60 CE.

A few errors suggest he his off his familiar topic: i.e, genetics. He would havebetter had chapter experts write an anthrology, and he act as the guiding editor. His now knowledge of history and theocracia seem very basic to me.

Again, one Liberace probably made more money than ten Rubensteins.

hi goodthief. you write "i have no reason to believe in the flying spaghetti monster". this seems to me to be the critical point: religious belief is still subject to rational critique. if you claim that your beliefs in a christian god are more reasonable than beliefs in flying spaghetti, then it's fair enough to ask you why. i'm not demanding you answer here in this forum, but the reasonableness of religious belief can never simply be a given.

Oliver mate; just quietly, for a bloke who claims to have "edited an academic journal," do you reckon you could maybe edit what you post here?!? It is jam packed with spelling errors and non-sequiturs.

What's an "indewell"? Who is Polanyi? Do you mean "a priori" conclusions? Or just "a prior conclusion?" What does "indwelling in mass/religious services" mean?

What do you mean he does explain the evolution of henotheism to monotheism? Did you mean he doesn't? What does the fact that churches and TV programs get Pilate's title incorrect have to do with Dawkins?

Seriously mate I am interested in what you have to say, but reading your posts is incredibly frustrating as I just can't follow them - edit them! I would love to know what you, as a fellow non-subscriber to religious belief (I am no longer calling myself "atheist" as I refuse to be defined in terms of someone else's delusion), think, but for the life of me your posts are too difficult! If you are going to throw stones at Dawkins for writing errors, you had best get your own house in order.

I mean the above in good faith as you appear to have something interesting to say, so please take the above in the spirit in which it was intended

HarryG

Thank you for your lovely compliment ...

“Someone who is not atheist must be someone who can suspend rational belief, and can come to conclusions based on a faith rather than a fact. Can we really have any confidence in a decision that that person might make?”

I completely agree. Your comment brings to mind Abrose Bierce’s definition of: “Pray, v. To ask that the laws of the universe be annulled on behalf of a single petitioner confessedly unworthy.”

We have all witnessed the collective dottiness of people on their knees praying to a fence post on which an “apparition” of the Virgin Mary appears at a certain time of day (unless there is heavy cloud cover); also people praying to a salt-damp mark on a church wall. An added bonus - someone in the same town found an “apparition” of Princess Di on her front verandah. Thus, two “sightings” providing satisfaction to two different beliefs.

The question is - would such people be less dotty if they were atheists?

I know an atheist who believes in theories surrounding crop circles. As he is a member of a club; it appears these adherents are multiplying like rabbits. This person carries around tomes of “evidence” and is as passionate about converting people as any door-knocking Christians. Whenever I see him, I necessarily move into an ever increasing trot - I suspect this is the main form of exercise I do.

cont ...

When studying archaeology many years ago, a lecturer (atheist) taught that the Romans expanded their empire looking for wells from which “power” could be sourced; that straight lines channelled power - thus the grid-pattern of Roman castra and towns. His office was a bobbing sea of pyramids - even placed over students’ papers to “raise” their marks. This lecturer had not always been thus, but had had some “conversion”. As he was tenured (had concrete boots) it would have been necessary for the students, as a body, to complain. Being undergrads, the “lowest form of academic life”, none of us dared. I have no doubt that some students complied with his “dogma” when writing papers. The last time I heard of him, he was heading a large gathering of people (including a mathematician from the science department) who hoped to be “powered up” by standing at the end of the longest street in our city, holding lighted candles.

“My (Catholic) cousin believes we should do nothing about climate change because the state of the planet is in the hands of her god.”

Some religious people would argue that we have god-given brains and free-will, and climate change was a problem to be tackled ... They would not advocate doing nothing, nor just prayer.

I do not subscribe to Christian belief, so have not read John Shelby Spong’s work. But hasn’t he attempted to remove the irrational elements in this religion?

Also, it has to be admitted that scientists don’t necessarily agree on the findings and interpretation of empirical evidence.

Then there is theoretical physics ...

Goodthief,

<<Dawkins is also less annoyed with deism, but he still regards this non-interventionist creator-God as unprovable (because it’s supernatural) and the deist as therefore irrational.>>

And he would be right.

There is absolutely no rationality in assuming that the questions that science cannot answer, are automatically answered by saying: “God must have done it”. Nor is there any rationality in the supernatural, because stating that God cannot be explained because he is not of the physical world is simply an excuse not to think.

There is about as much rationality in the lack of thought, as there is life a dead corpse.

<<I'm very happy for religion, and theism generally, to be critiqued.>>

Then you would be in an extremely small minority.

<<My fellow Christians do it all the time, from inside. >>

As a former Christian myself, I can tell you that they don't really. Just take a look at the majority of Christians on OLO, and the fact that it doesn't matter how many times you prove them wrong, they just keep coming back with the same old arguments. This is also evidential in the so-called 'science' of Creationism.

Some try to critique Theism, but questioning something when your sense of reason is so fundamentally flawed is pointless.

<<The aggressive atheistic ideology I have in mind is communism. Not that they killed because they’re atheists: the point is, God was removed from the equation, and slaughter still occurred.>>

I've never heard any Atheist claim that removing God from the equation would suddenly bring about a peaceful utopia. But it's certainly evident that religion brings about a lot more violence in the world then there would be without it.

Good to see you're not implying that the atrocities committed by Communists were done in the name of Atheism though. All too often, Theists think they've pulled a trump card when they mention Stalin, Pol Pot and the likes when it's asked: “How many wars started in the name of Atheism?”. This of course, is patently false.

AJ Phillips, I don’t believe in God because of gaps in scientific knowledge. I simply believe in God, and I believe God made a natural world that can be apprehended by the senses.

Also, I’m not saying God can’t be explained, but that God can’t be explained scientifically. Which troubles you enormously, and doesn’t trouble me at all.

Bushbasher. If by “rational critique”, you mean “critique that only considers empirical proof”, then we don't agree. This is because I don’t see rationality as dependent simply on evidence. I would only accept that kind of critique if you convince me that empirically acquired knowledge is the only knowledge. As things stand, I don’t accept this, but occupy a broader position. If I evangelised, I would not try to prove anything in the scientific sense; it’s the same when, like here, I’m playing defence.

The Flying Spaghetti Monster is only relevant if someone says that liberating oneself from the empiricist strait-jacket means one can believe absolutely anything without any explanation at all. This is not what I’m saying. I have reasons for believing in God: it’s just that my reasons are unimpressive to a scientist.

Reliance on the Bible is somewhat circular – “I believe in God because of the Bible, and I believe in the Bible because of God” – but it’s still very helpful, and anyway I believe God breaks the circle by “intruding” on my attention, in my case by Jesus leaping from the pages of the Gospels. Also, my belief in God “works”. Also, I love God, very dearly. I can't reproduce these experiences in a lab.

I also believe that theism has a lot of staying power, and that talk about religious wars, emotional crutches and speculative evolutionary explanations (of religion) are not enough to dismiss it. The main Dawkinsian reason for denying religion (prayer etc) is the “fact” that there’s no God to be religious about – but, this too is circular. If there’s no God, then of course religion and prayer are silly.

Pax,

Goodtheif,

<<I don’t believe in God because of gaps in scientific knowledge. I simply believe in God, and I believe God made a natural world that can be apprehended by the senses.>>

Yes, you've made that very clear.

But how do you know you're worshiping the right God? There are many God's, each one with their own set of followers who are just as certain as you that their God is the real God.

Believers of other faiths, 'know' as much as you 'know', and feel it the same as you feel it.

Had you been born in ancient Scandinavia, you'd be sure that Thor exists.

But the only reason I mentioned the 'gaps', is because the topic of rationally has been raised, and that is some of the 'rationality' used by Theists quite often.

<<Also, I’m not saying God can’t be explained, but that God can’t be explained scientifically.>>

But isn't that just too easy?

<<Which troubles you enormously, and doesn’t trouble me at all.>>

The only reason it 'troubles' me, is because it suppresses our naturally curious minds, and people are willing to do all sorts of crazy things in the name of God. When, let's face it, there's no way anyone can know for sure if God does or does not exist. Even the 'feelings' and 'senses' can be easily explained by what little we know about psychology and the human brain.

Surely at some point, one's sense of logic should kick-in when one considers how flawed the Bible is, and how many other (non-speculative) scientific and logical explanations there are for what the religious believe.

Surely one can only cherry-pick the Bible so much before one's sense of reason kicks-in, and the excuses of the 'metaphysical' God, and the 'metaphorical' Holy Book don't do it anymore.

Surely we've all reached this point now. Especially when you consider that Gods were used by more primitive people to explain the unexplainable.

But if it works for you, and you get something out of it, without forcing any of it on to anyone else, then I guess that's alright.

AJ Philips, a few brief points in case you return to this string:-

There is only room for one God. My apprehension of that one God is from my vantage point. The “other Gods” you mention either don’t exist, or are the same God from a different vantage point.

My knowledge of God is similar to your knowledge (or, at least, the empiricist’s knowledge) that empiricism is the only path to knowledge. So, you need to add empiricism to the list of gods that are “known”.

Science is not the only pathway for curiosity. In any event, I have no objection to scientific curiosity being pursued with all the energy that can be mustered. The Christians I know feel the same way. Faith is not a denial of science: it co-exists with science. Arguably, belief in a God who has made our senses reasonably reliable and has set things up so that the scientist can extrapolate from observed (experimental) events to unobserved generalisations is as good a foundation for science as you can get.

I don’t cherry pick from the Bible. I rejoice in what I understand, puzzle over what I don’t understand and struggle with what troubles me.

Pax,

Goodthief,

<<Science is not the only pathway for curiosity.>>

No, but it's the most reliable method we have for learning about the world around us. Any answers that religion is thought to provide are undermined by the fact that they rely on the assumption that there really is a God.

<<I have no objection to scientific curiosity being pursued with all the energy that can be mustered. The Christians I know feel the same way. Faith is not a denial of science: it co-exists with science...>>

The Christians you know, sound like a very select bunch of Christians then. Yo DO know that I'm referring specifically to Biological/Evolutionary science, don't you? Not any other kind of science. In fact, I'm currently debating a Christian here on OLO at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=6784&page=0 who denies the science of Evolution.

Although, there were other kinds of science that were stifled by religion in the past. Remember the scientific theories, hundreds of years ago, that could have seen scientists facing charges of Heresy?

One thing's for sure though, Secularism has helped inject a lot of sanity into religion. Honestly, where would the church be without Secularism to help guide them and help pull them out of the dark ages? Really brings into question the value of religion though, and whether or not religion really does hold answers to the questions that science can't necessarily answer - yet.

<<I don’t cherry pick from the Bible. I rejoice in what I understand, puzzle over what I don’t understand and struggle with what troubles me.>>

You must really be struggling with chapters such as Leviticus and Deuteronomy then. And saying that the teachings of Jesus make the Old Testament irrelevant (or parts of it) IS cherry-picking.

But if you were to resort to simply saying that the cruelty of the Old Testament could've been symbolic, well, that just goes back to one of the points in my last post about chopping and changing the interpretation of the Bible, and how the need to do this brings it into question.

AJ Philips, Putting words in my mouth is not going to assist our discussion. Please don't do it. I said nothing about Jesus making the OT irrelevant, or anything about OT violence being symbolic.

My point is simply that the difficulties one encounters within the Bible - however dire, and however modern scholarship seeks to account for them - are not necessarily a block to belief. It doesn't work that way. I believe in God and the Bible, so I have to struggle. Nothing remarkable in that. I don't have to stride away from the Bible with my nose in the air just because I find something in it that I can't cope with.

Pax,

goodthief, i appreciate the spirit in which you've written here. but i have to say, it is very difficult for one who does not share your beliefs to make heads or tails of WHY you believe what you believe. you keep saying there is more than "empiricism" - which i summarise for myself as the senses and reason - but you don't say what.

for me at least, it simply seems that you believe because you believe. that is fine as far it goes. but it gives me no method - no competitor or colleague to "empiricism" - with which to work.

i don't really mind. you have none of the childish anti-science nonsense about you, which is my only real concern here. but, if you want people (me at least) to understand your broader ways of knowing, you'll have to be much clearer.

Goodthief,

I apologise if it sounded like I was putting words in your mouth. That wasn't my intension.

What I was trying to do was preempt an argument that is used very often. But if you don't use those arguments, then again, you are a very unique Christian.

But I think that referring the horrors of the Old Testament as “difficulties”, is drastically understating them. If it's not symbol, then God (the Father) truly is a distasteful and down-right horrid being, and certainly not worthy of any worship.

The horrors of the Old Testament may not be a “block to belief”, but I can't help but question the sense of reason of someone who doesn't seriously question the Bible and the existence of a supposedly wise and superior being considering this kind of abhorrent content.

Bushbasher and AJ Philips, This will now be more difficult. Much easier to conduct these discussions from a safe polemical distance! :)

My reasons for believing form a narrative. I can’t dismiss upbringing, but I know I discarded belief in my teens – so that, when I took it on again, it was as a virtual stranger/enemy. I did this in a very atheistic university philosophy department. A CS Lewis book stopped me from dismissing Christianity as ridiculous, but didn’t make me believe. Then, I read a gospel – like a novel – and the central character leapt from the pages and made an impression on me that has proved indelible. At the time, I was not happy about it! Because I was about to lose authority over my life and because of the Christian baggage I would inherit. But, the impression was made. The “impression” formed a bond of love – love for someone present not past.

I have found that it “works” day to day.

Intellectually, I am dissatisfied with other thinking I’ve encountered – eg I find empiricism too narrow. I’m very pro-reason. And I believe my eyes like a good empiricist – trusting my eyes because of God – but I don’t see this as a limitation. And I find Judaism and Islam too reliant on one’s performance with the rules: I don’t think we can ever earn our way to Heaven. Buddhism isn’t theistic, and I don’t know much about Hinduism.

I believe Jesus “trumps” the Old Testament, but doesn’t contradict it. Same God. I believe the “God of Israel” is a jealous, partisan lover, who savages any threat to His beloved. Savage, but that’s love. No longer dangerous, as Jesus has opened up the whole thing to everyone, so no-one is really “outside”.

The biggest challenge is not the Bible, but current human suffering. Often makes me bemused or even angry with God – with the occasional walk-out – but doesn’t make me disbelieve.

AJ, perhaps your Christian past was especially narrow and controlling?

Pax,

goodthief, i have no wish to attack your christian beliefs. but again you've really not offered anything beyond your belief itself. you give no alternative METHOD of knowing, anything beyond the empiricism you wish to attack as too narrow.

you are allowed to believe whatever you want to believe. i'm not concerned with your beliefs. what i'm concerned with is your attacks on "empiricism" as too narrow. but if you give me no alternative - and you haven't - then this is empty criticism.

this is not to mean that there is nothing but empiricism. as i said at the very beginning, we have to be humble about what we know. human condition and human meaning is going to be a muddy mess. but that's not a criticism of empiricism - or an argument for an alternative. it is simply an acknowledged limitation.

and, if i'm going to be skeptical of what empiricism may tell me, i'll be at least as skeptical of what empiricism-free pondering tells me. i'm not sure, in this regard, that you are sufficiently skeptical.

Bushbasher, If I were to talk of “method”, I could only talk in terms of being open. This is essentially a matter of removing obstacles. One obstacle is the self-imposed limitation of empiricism. Another is the conceit (usual human conceit) of being the judge of what exists, what is okay etc. Then, I suppose it’s a matter of being actively curious about the subject under discussion – in this case, God or Jesus. I would not remove logic, as I don’t see that as an obstacle.

The fact that I can’t impress you with this broader way of thinking doesn’t mean it makes sense to remain within the self-imposed constraints of empiricism. This remains your choice. Remain enclosed, or open up to other possibilities. Perhaps you need a “method” to feel safe? I don’t ask this with disrespect, but with empathy. I could say that Jesus is very safe – since I am convinced of this – but I don’t expect that will help. In that case, you need a sense of adventure. By all means, take your critical thinking with you. I know that churches are among the places where we should not uncritically swallow whole everything that is said.

I realise I may have given less than you asked, I’m sorry.

Pax,

goodthief, i think it's obvious we're not getting anywhere. you jump on my use of the word "method" but you talk of "way of thinking". you simply have not indicated any other "way" of thinking. all it amounts to is that you believe some things which can't be proved. fair enough. so do i. but the difficulty comes depending upon WHAT unprovable things you believe. it's not a case of anything goes.

if you believe there is a loving god, then i have no objection (and am actually envious though i cannot share your belief). if you believe something like this god works through the miracles performed by mother teresa, then i have huge objections.

in other words, to the extent that your beliefs ae testable by empirical methods, then they are answerable to such tests. to the extent that your beleifs are untestable then, for me, they are neither here nor there.

Bushbasher, Perhaps you’re right, and I’m happy to leave it. Had no intention of “jumping” on your words. I was really trying to communicate.

For what it’s worth, I agree that any specific belief that is contradicted by empirical evidence has to be abandoned – so long as it’s conclusively contradicted. So, I’m not a creationist because of the evidence of the world’s age – and also because I believe in God’s integrity (I’m not buying the notion that He perversely made it to look older than it is).

I think we both use logic. But, we differ in the way we apprehend facts – facts which we then work on logically.

I’m not advocating that “anything goes” – that the move out from empiricism carries no sense of reasonableness or responsibility. For me, this is taken care of by my starting point – God, and my understanding of God’s character and God’s relationship with the world. Proceeding logically – and often empirically – from this base has never, that I know of, led me to something patently unreasonable (except from the strict empiricist point-of-view, of course). Yet, it has given me access to more than science can confidently account for (at present).

Happy to continue, or not, as you like.

Pax,

goodthief, i think that's enough for now. not out of grumpiness - i've appreciated the discussion - but just i think we pretty much know where each other stands. diminishing returns. i do appreciate you haven't thrown empiricism out the window, and don't engage in special pleading (unlike a depressing numbers of christians who contribute here).

as you agree, it's not "anything goes". there are rules and standards for our beliefs, whatever their origins. and i'm always interested then to try to flesh out what those rules are. but it's probably best to leave further discussion for a new impetus.

all the best.