An interesting article. My atheism leads me to put Islam and Christianity in the same category as astrology, witchcraft and Stalin's cult of personality. An elclectic mix I know but what they all have in common are belief systems I find as having no use in the real world, are contradicted by scientific logic and are often positively harmful. So I guess I'm anti-dogma as much as I'm anti-religion.

But isn't a belief in, say, the theory of gravity a dogma I hear you ask? No, because like all scientific theories it is taken as given until (this crucial) something that obviously contradicts that theory comes along. In contrast, when did you last hear of an Islamic fanatic say they go by the Koran but something later may disprove it?

For the religiously devout there is also the problem of who to believe. Why should I believe in the Mormons' Imaginary Friend rather than the Jews? Or just put my faith in tarot cards instead? Decisions, decisions...

One could say that the heliocentric solar system, Darwin’s theory of evolution and the organisation of the elements into the Periodic table are scientific dogma. That is they are hypotheses that have been established over many years and although, like all theories, there is a chance that they may be overturned or modified this seems very unlikely.

This may be compared to the dogma of the Christian Church that the name of God is Father, Son and Holy Spirit and that this name indicates the truth of the past, present and future of what happened between us and Jesus. This dogma of the Church does not rely on irrational hypothesises like the existence of an all powerful nonmaterial being. Rather, it is an interpretation of a particular event in history whose meaning continues to form human life, to call it into being. Certainly many of the stories told about this event have characteristics that do not fit with our mechanistic view of the world but that can be excused to a prescientific people who were more intent on getting a message across than obeying scientific laws they knew nothing of.

I agree with the new atheists, religion is a problem, it distorts our view of the world. However Christian faith, in its purity cannot be confused with religion. After all, the history of Israel, as illustrated in the Old Testament, is a history of a nation’s flirtation with religion to its peril. Likewise, when Christianity entered the Greek world it encountered all kinds of religious notions that it had to deal with. The tragedy of Christianity is that from being the religion to end all religions it eventually succumbed and is now popularly counted as only one among the religions. A deeper analysis will reveal otherwise

I don't see conflating religion with faith and dogma as an unreasonable position, given that they have been the basis for the world's most powerful religions for thousands of years, and still remain so today.

If you want to keep the worthwhile aspects of religion then it's surely preferable to call it something else.

I will allow that the wiktionary definition of religion includes:

4. Any system or institution which one engages with in order to foster a sense of meaning or relevance in relation to something greater than oneself.

...which is a broad enough meaning to be useful without the need for faith and/or dogma. But it's not clear what the corresponding definition of "religious" would be. I highly doubt those who attend, say, secular humanist gatherings, or science/nature appreciation societies would call themselves religious on that basis.

What a waste of time and effort.

If atheists are correct then we are all nothing but worm food.

Nothing we do causes any 'harm' or does any 'good' nor is anything we do 'right' or 'wrong'. These are all non-scientific social constructs.

Of course people will squeal that, for example, nuclear warfare would destroy the planet and this would somehow be 'wrong'.

Sure everybody and everything might die, but everything dies anyway, so, so what?

If atheists are correct then everything came into existence unintentionally by random chance and there is absolutely no purpose for our or anything elses existence.

Again, we are nothing but worm food and the worms don't matter either.

Articles like this and the rantings of Dawkins, Harris, et al, are if they are correct about atheism, a complete waste of time.

But then I guess people have to do something before they die and go to oblivion.

1. Yes, the world is open, uncertain, unfinished, and unfinishable. But so many people crave a closed world, for which one needs a closed mind, in which everything is known or knowable, controllable, certain, and above all closed, no more need for argument (bad) or debate. So one's declared opinion is all, the end, no more discussion, and anybody disagreeing with an opinion is not playing the game, making trouble, threatening to open up a properly-closed subject. But, the world is still open .....

But no, it's not true that the Devil has all the best tunes - God has by far the better ones, even those written by non-believers like Brahms and (I presume?) Beethoven. Even atheists like myself can fall in love with the beautiful music of devout believers like Elgar and Mendelssohn and, of course, Bach. Devout believers can, in their work, inspire even non-believers: from what I have read of the dedication and efforts of many of the missionaries in Aboriginal communities, fanatically-devout as they may have been, I am full of admiration for their contributions (at least, most of them), for their love of humanity and concern for the poorest and most abandoned. There is, after all, this humanitarian thread all through the Christian myth, perhaps creatively embellished over time, of course. But there are parables in the bible that are even more urgently relevant today, the lessons of the good Samaritan, for example, or Adam and Eve bucking God and getting thrown out of Eden, the woman at the well, Job cursing God, etc., admirable stories with a lot to teach us. More later.

Joe

2. In reference to my earlier post:

But of course, none of these cases are particularly religious in the sense of requiring belief in an outside deity, more likely (in the sense that Spinoza would have used it) that these are examples of the inner godliness in all of us, in everything, not an externalised God overarching all, but a divine essence IN everything in the universe, including us, nothing outside. In that sense, we are all self-determining in how 'divine' we want to be, and there is no-one outside and above us to appeal to for guidance. It's up to us. As an atheist, I'm quite comfortable with the notion that we are all metaphorically divine, all to an extent in control of our own lives and how to live them, our one-and-only life, and how we use our one-and-only life for the benefit of others (and gain eternal life, in a sense) or just for ourselves (and go straight to Hell when we die, so to speak). Do we make a difference, and for the good of at least some others ? Or will we vanish from the Earth with nothing more than bad memories left behind ? It's up to us.

It's not just an open world, it's an unguided world too, no God who sorts everything out for us, who keeps it all safe and closed off for us. It's a world that demands that we all concern ourselves about each other's welfare, doing good, if you like, for its own sake but also for our mutual survival.

Joe

I'm not sure I agree totally, DavidJS.

>>For the religiously devout there is also the problem of who to believe<<

I doubt that this is a serious issue with many religious dogmatists. It would be interesting to see some statistics, but I would suggest that the vast majority of folk who put their hands up and say "I'm religious" have been adherents of the one religion forever.

The rate of conversion is, I suspect, very low - and if anyone knows where to find the numbers on this I'd be grateful.

But most importantly, I suspect the number of people who decide first that they are religious, and then sit down to work out which religion to follow, is not only minimal, but non-existent.

The reality is that a huge percentage were "brought up" with a religion. If you are born of Jewish parents, then the chances are that you will grow up to be i) Jewish, ii) agnostic or iii) atheist. If you are born in Riyadh, the chances are that you will grow up to be be i) Muslim or ii) dead. If you were brought up as a Christian then etc.etc.

As the article points out, The facts point to the considerable possibility that religion is in fact a social, rather than transcendental, phenomenon.

"...religions are social institutions that are very effective at providing community, solidarity and mutual support"

There is no specific requirement for a godless country to be evil, but if 100% of those around you are of the same religion - as in Saudi Arabia - then the chances of you even considering an alternative are pretty low.

If only more religionists would accept this simple fact, that the existence of religion is determined by an individual's place of birth, and their upbringing, as opposed to the possibility of a supreme being, we would be living in a far more stable world.

I am an atheist.

My concern with religions is that they affect my life in a way I don't want it affected.

And because I see it as illogical and harmful and a whole lot of other things, I argue as rationally as I can against religions whenever the opportunity arises.

The idea of worshipping something or somebody (other than the Rabbitohs) irks me. Having faith in something that does not deserve faith, even if it existed, is surely the pits.

GP, if you are claiming that one needs a creator to have meaning and purpose, then assuming you don't believe God was created by some other even higher God, then the logical conclusion is that God himself has no meaning or purpose. Alternatively, if God can have a meaning and purpose without being created, then so can you.

And any rate, my own life has plenty of meaning and purpose. I certainly can't imagine how positing some overbearing superbeing who, for whatever reason, decided to create himself a universe would add anything to it.

Well said Wiz.

Absolutely brilliant article. Hooray for common sense!

Faith has two sides. There is a beauty in the comfort it offers, but there is the ugliness in the simple truth that it's a self imposed ignorance. Faith, simply defined, is a belief in what's beyond reason. Therefore, you can't actually reason with people who have too much faith.

To my way of thinking, religion has three aspects - which funnily enough, if you're willing to think laterally, don't require religion at all.

1) Meaning of life.

I'm flummoxed by the people who think this is a hard question. Life's meaning can be to happy, and be content. Whilst I can see conservatives saying this is the gateway to hedonism, I'd say that hedonism ultimately doesn't make people happy - true happiness and contentment, lies in reflected happiness - making others happy. Understanding this leads to a giving person.

2) God.

Seems to me that 'faith' is more of a barrier to belief in a sensible god than it is a help, because it leads people to adopt the simplest concept of god, which doesn't actually fit what's around them.

Consider this: most monotheistic gods have a simple concept of god as an intelligent being, embroidered with additional aspects that are supposedly beyond our understanding.

However, if instead of utilising faith and observing the world around you, you see that intelligence isn't necessarily the best way to get things done.
We hear that god is beyond our understanding, but what if god simply wasn't an intelligence?

If intelligence is receiving information and making considered decisions, as opposed to instinct, then how can intelligence exist for an omnipotent being, which presumably is precluded from 'receiving information' as it has it already?

It can't be an intelligence. The idea of an intelligent god is all too human. We've attempted to create a 'bigger person' of sorts and put Him in charge.

Cont'd

Every day, there are thousands of interactions as energy moves between objects - be it wind, the waves and gravity, or the digestion of an insect by a frog. This sounds like new age nonsense to some, but it's also an indisputable fact.

I'd rather call this god. I can see it and I don't need faith to do so.

It doesn't care about the petty things in my life - some people might find that cold - the fact that it continues regardless of the acts of man. I find the opposite - no matter what we do, there will be a beautiful chemical interplay going on beyond our world in the galaxies beyond. Which leads to 3).

3) Afterlife.

Some people need to know their intelligence, who they are, will be intact once they die. I don't see evidence of this, but all the evidence points to our matter being recycled in new forms - so too, the electrical neurons that fire in our brain and make us think.

I won't be reincarnated in a simple single entity like a fish - I'll be spread out among many things, possible intelligence, or possibly the eruption of a volcano once life is gone.
This can be seen in the laws of conservation.
I will exist, in a new form, though who is to say what's lesser or greater. Trillions of years in the future, part of my neurons might form a small part of intelligence I can't grasp, making the spark that forms a beautiful decision in a single moment in time.

All of these things are self evident - they don't require faith, but if you're willing to be a little less hung up on the traditional aspect of existence, there is a great deal of beauty and comfort to be had. It's a spirituality, to be sure, but it doesn't require me to give up the reason I've been gifted with to sign up to institutionalised ignorance.

This is an alternative to religion, offering comfort and greatness beyond ourselves to ponder, without the hangups associated with faith.

Oh, we could all make good compost when we go, when we go!
Though it ain’t in the bible, it is so, that is so.
And the plants that we could fertilize, they would grow, they would grow.
Knowing that I could still be useful, and a benefit, is so peaceful
While I journey along the satisfying path of life.
Trying to make things better for my tribe and their friends’ litters,
And such other friendly critters, is feel-good of a goose-bumps raising kind.
I’ve no wish to burden heaven by wingin’ up there swingin’
To the same harmonious chorus that continues ‘til it bores us –
And there, I’d meet with many that are far too contemptible to know.
Among those sure to be present is good aura, and I’ll very much be for ‘er –
But the all-pervasive dogma will be a cert to sniff-out and bite me.
Yes, I have no wish nor intention there to go

GP, none of these books is a "rant". Obviously, you have not read them. You are thus unqualified to comment. They are all closely reasoned, with the possible exception of Hitchens', who has had to concede that Orthodox Jews do not perform the conjugal act through a hole in the bed sheet, a claim he made in his book.

Benjamin O'DonnellI " It was not its atheism per se, but the illiberalism, the undemocratic nature, the dogmatism of Communism that made it the architect of so much 20th century horror."
Of course, we are never given any examples of what dogmatism he refers to or precisely is; it is just thrown in. He also neglects to mention that Stalinism (a right wing nationalist tendency) was not Communism. Moreover, that there was an alternative to Stalinism called the Left Opposition led by Leon Trotsky. Mr. O'Donell is a right wing supporter of capitalism which he neglects to mention.

As many workers understand and have experienced "the architect of so much 20th century horror" was capitalism administered by the liberal politicians who were given the levers of power as long as they defended the ruling financial oligarchy. As well as, promoting "we live in a democracy" - when it is only the democracy of and exclusively for "moneybags."
In 1914 the capitalists and their liberal politicians promoted the "war to end all wars" that is, until the next one came along. The liberals never principally nor publicly explained the wars were about dividing up the world for resources and profits. Let us not forget the new wars that are now on the drawing board including the possible use of nuclear weapons. During the 1960's the liberals then cried "troops out" but since then many have have moved to the right and now chant "troops in".
Capitalism too is responsible for multi millions of workers that starve to death slowly in many countries and the thousands of children that go blind every day for want of clean water; administered and consecrated by the liberal politicians.

Thinking is an evolutionary concept. Learning to think together is the triple treat to be felt if the the aim is reach a humanity beyond all forms of violence and terror.

I agree that it aint all about people, time and religiion. That it is about dogma, and how it's functionism plagues us from the will to discover more about what we can breath... come to know or even know about what is true within all of us.

I particularly like the quote about Sweden. That when polled, "more than 80 per cent of Swedes say they don't believe in God and more than 40 per cent explicitly identify themselves as atheists. Yet Sweden has some of the lowest homicide, poverty, teenaged pregnancy and STD rates in the world. It is a functioning liberal democracy with high levels of wealth, very little social unrest and a near 100 per cent lliteracy rate."

http://www.miacat.com/

But religion is not just, or even mainly, about believing or faith, it is about

(1) hoping that you can live forever and if all you have to do is fall on your knees and pray, well that's a small price to pay. Schopenhauer remarked that if he could pursue the most devout christian that there wasn't a heaven, they would become an atheist in twenty minutes. Or something to that effect. And

(2) finding a purpose for one's life and dedicating oneself to it. More sophisticated Christians may have the nous to realise that a smart god, one who is not fooled by people falling on their knees to her, would also require a bit of good deeds (or twice as much prayer, or some mixture of the two). So they might get some of the good deeds under their belt to make sure of getting into heaven. But it has to be pointed out that, even amongst Christians, some missionaries for example, it is very likely that they were/are not as interested in the heaven part as in the good deeds part - that they do actually have a sense of purpose in helping their fellow human beings, just like some of us atheists do.

What actually amazes me is that many of the people on this thread seem to think (and act) as if, in the absence of a god, there is no purpose to human life. Of course there is: us, the human race, all of humanity, especially the oppressed and down-trodden, the women and children in Indigenous settlements, the people in Burma and Darfur (and now we hear about the CAR as well) taking refuge in the forests and deserts. And

Joe

I would even respectfully suggest that, even if God has the best tunes, atheists have the best purposes. Working for human betterment (including, of course, fixing up the environment) - what better purpose could there be ? Work only for yourself and powder your little soul and sure enough, nobody will remember you. Leave behind a better world, as much as you can, and whether you seek it or not, you will be remembered. We are both the purpose, and the means to attain it. Please, no more 'there is no purpose, we are all worm-food' crap. Leave that to the disillusioned Christians who have just discovered that there is no heaven, no god in control, no nicely closed world. Good on you, Mia. Love your site.

Joe

I believe in God. Believing in God, I find purpose and the afterlife (among other things), but I know I didn’t start believing in God in order to find a purpose or in order to persuade myself I could live forever. I just believe in God. My “reasons” would form a narrative, which I won’t trouble you with, but I don’t know anyone who believes in God in order to acquire purpose or eternal life. I’m sure there are some, or even a lot, but I don’t know them. For me, and Christians like me, the belief is the starting point: the purpose etc follow from it, they don’t precede it.

Many of you seem to think that belief in God can be taken on or shrugged off at will. In my experience, it isn’t like that. For example, the lack of scientific evidence is not persuasive. People like me are not relying on science. This is Dawkins’ biggest error, I think: he doesn’t understand the way his targets think. This may be arrogance or a lack of empathy on his part, I don’t know, but his arguments miss the mark by a wide margin. I’m sure empirically minded atheists find his work delightful, and that’s fine, but I think he’s wasting his time with religious people.

And calling me names, like “irrational” and “deluded”, is more irritating than persuasive.

Pax,

some good posts and poem here...and usual suspects...those who are so sure...when we cant be 'absolutely sure' the sun will arise tomorrow...makes one look more at who the person they are and what is their intention...

but a concern as well in that the distinct lack of consideration for issue of 'energy' in daily action as an essential part of the discussion ...when its such an integral and fundamental part of what makes us human...and not use that on issue of god...who is thought/expected to be 'intelligent pure energy'...

we as children were controlled with it mainly by our mothers...no need for words...you could follow the 'instructions'...and see the same all around us on the streets with mothers and children...Im saying women have the awareness of energy and control of it better tuned in than men...

I always thought men had the same awareness and control of energy...because most of us have sex right...and if not able to increase sexual energy during the act then where is the intensity of it...and which the basic form of energy which even most mammals have and respond on...and without this the act of sex is just a physical sensation whose novelty would wear off after a while...

I hope I have put my thoughts down clearly...and men reading this do understand...I know women do...

for if all this energy around us, being used in and in between living forms that we know...the concept of god is essentially a superior power exists that can control that energy in its entirety...so can create/observe/intervene in its interactions...cant see how we can have a discussion about god and not discuss this aspect as a fundamental part...

Sam

*If atheists are correct then we are all nothing but worm food.*

One thing that I know GP, is that one day, worm food you will
be!

Now I could promise you that its all not true, that somehow
by magic, it won't actually happen to you. I can take your
money in doing so, tell you how to behave, if you want to
avoid being worm food. I could use your fear of death to
have quite some control over you!

But then I would have to be honest with myself and admit
that I was a snake oil salesman, playing on your fears
and hopes.

Unfortunately I am far too honest to be a religious leader.

Sanmk Said,
Most living things get their energy from cellular respiration, and the energy produced during that cellular respiration process is measurable in joules.

But one of the characteristics of a living thing is its ability to reproduce, and while it may have the energy necessary to reproduce, it also has to have the desire to reproduce.

A living thing can have the energy to reproduce, but not the desire, so I think the desire to reproduce and grow does not come from cellular respiration, but from something else (which is not quantifiable).

Perhaps a lot of dogma has been an attempt to quantify what is not quantifiable.

hrs the common currency of energy at cellular level in most life is 'atp'...and I think you are referring to 'krebs cycle' which is the engine that produces atp from different food groups we eat/convert ie protein carbohydrates and fats within each cell...

internet search produces good information ...wiki on krebs(aka citric acid cycle) is ok for a start

I think I get your link between energy and desire to reproduce...as to intensity of pleasure during act of sex...and how this intensity can be increased by becoming aware of sexual energy and able to to vary its intensity...now that is something totally different...

from talking to other people over time...it seems a small percentage have fair control over amount of sexual energy they can put during the act and to vary it according to intensity(as too much causes ejaculation/orgasm and which diminishes/'brings to end' the body pleasure response in sex), majority of people have a sense of it but struggle to identify and control, and smaller percentage have almost no concept of sexual energy control during the act(sex is just the physical sensation only)...

Sam
If this is just garble then talk to people in first group...word of warning women are different to men eg women say spin the energy anticlockwise and for men its clockwise...

Yabby: " *If atheists are correct then we are all nothing but worm food.*

One thing that I know GP, is that one day, worm food you will
be!"

Well at least we can all agree on something!

Hi everyone,

I hope you had a wonderful weekend celebrating Australia day, and the freedom of speech we have in our wonderful state of Queensland.

I thought you might like to see there, Mr. Dawkins gets stumped by a creationist's question.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zaKryi3605g

Have a great day :)

josh mitchell

Umm Josh, I don't think that Dawkins was stumped at all.
It just took him a bit of time to think about answering
the question in the way that even people like you can
understand it, given that you normally only ever understand
3 word answers, ie "God did it"

Coming up with simple answers to complex questions takes
a bit of thinking. But then if he answered in a complex
way, it would of course be clean over your head :)

Actually, Dawkins clarified this situation on a forum on his website:

"1. An Australian woman called Gillian Brown, interviewing me in my own house in Oxford, asked me a question which I immediately recognized as a creationist plant.

2. I paused for a long time trying to decide whether to answer the question or throw her out of my house.

3. I eventually asked her to stop the camera and tried to throw her out. We moved into a different room, while she pleaded with me for about 20 minutes not to throw her out. In the end, I foolishly relented and agreed to go back into the filming room.

4. When the film eventually was released, I found that she had edited the two parts together -- before and after the 20 minute break -- and made it look as though my answer to a completely different question not shown on the film (about modern species not being evolved from other modern species) was an evasively irrelevant response to the original question (about information content). I am astonished that people are fooled by this transparent piece of fakery, given that there is an obvious cut. I also noticed that the original question (about information content) which she herself had posed off camera, was now posed by an Australian MAN, and he is seen ON camera, presumably in Australia and in an obviously different room from the one in which the interview took place. There is a THIRD version of the film, in which the question is put by an American man, who then mimes foolish actions to camera. It is not clear whether this third version is intended to be taken as the 'real' one, or whether it is intended as a satire on creationist tactics. The truth is that there is NO real version of the film. All three are fakes, the American version only slightly more obviously faked than the two Australian ones."

http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=7400&start=50

Hi Yabby,

Glad to see the evolutionist's like yourself are as assuming as usual :)

If you watch the video again, Dawkins did not provide an answer that met the question satisfactorily. He merely stated his theory, which he believes by faith to be true. Of course cannot experientially "know" that it is true, because he wasn't there at the beginning of the universe. Don't worry I know you and I are in the same boat, we weren't there either.

He was stumped.. too a long time to answer, and ultimately did not provide the evidence asked for, by the interviewer.

I love people believing things, I think its good to have convictions, I just like to see people have reasons for what they believe.

Have a great night dude, look forward to hearing from you again,

josh mitchell

I would like to applaud Mr. O'Donnell and this journal for a very well written and insightful article, something that is quite rare on this topic. If only more people understood the argument as well as O'Donnell then many more would be convinced by it. I'm certain that this article will have that effect on some.

Josh said

"Glad to see the evolutionist's [sic] like yourself are as assuming as usual :)"

Quite funny you should say that Josh, assuming what, exactly?

I know you can't post more than twice in 24 hours, so I am sure it will be just a matter of time before you are back to admit that you have been hoodwinked by a shameful deception.

So the trick is to ask someone a question, then show them answering a completely different one.. and who are the people with no morals, ethics or values again? Remind me Josh? Oh that's right.. the damn godless atheists!

And who would have thought that creationists would stoop to such depths? I mean, with god on your side, why do you need to lie to make a point?

And fancy someone like yourself believing in this Dawkins cut-and-paste propaganda, without any evidence, and then going on to tell the world about it, in order to bolster your own worldview? Oh hang on.. I forgot.. that's what you people do!

Josh,

I’ll be interested in your response to Stickman. I have always wondered why Creationists feel the need to be so deceptive. Especially since they should know better. You know, with the whole 9th commandment and all…

”Thou shalt not bare false witness against thy neighbour”

Just take a look at all their “evidence” that refutes evolution. Their arguments are cherry-picked and misleading. Not to mention that there is a very logical explaination for every little piece of their so-called "evidence". They always forget to metion that part though.

Not only does Dawkins answer this question in 'The God Delusion', but the video responses to that clip also provide an answer.

<<Dawkins did not provide an answer that met the question satisfactorily.>>

The answer he provided was for a different question.

How easily we a fooled when we want to believe something. No wonder Christians think that they can sense God in their lives. Those neurons in our brains can do some powerful things.

<<He merely stated his theory, which he believes by faith to be true.>>

No. He stated a valid theory that there is a lot of evidence for. Therefore, your use of the word “faith” is incorrect if you are trying to use it in the same context as religious faith.

<<He was stumped.. too a long time to answer>>

The fact that someone might think for a while before answering a question, shows a lot more intelligence then bursting out in a ‘happy-clappy’ kind of way: “God did it!” One of the many problems with religion is that it stops people from thinking or questioning too much.

But let us play your game for a little while and pretend that he was stumped...

So what?

Just because Evolutionists many not have the answer to everything, doesn’t mean that you can suddenly discard everything else.

How much evidence do creationists have? Zip!

Do we need some definitions and distinctions to facilitate this conversation? For example, what is "religion"? Is it fair to assume that we all share the same understanding of that concept/word? If an individual claims religious motivation for a terrible act, is it fair to blame religion? And is "dogma" the same as "dogmatism"? Is it possible to be either "dogmatic" or "rational" in accepting a "dogma"? The essential charateristics of "rationalism" - as I understand it - is its demand that a truth claim must be either - or both - empirically verifiable of philosophically/mathematically proveable. Can either of these demands be empirically verified or philosophically/ mathematically proved? If not, is it "rational" to hold them? Are they not equivalent to articles of faith?

One thing I have found is it is pointless to argue with religion, but one must be ready to defend oneself against it.
Religion is an aggressive social construct that "feeds" on basic human attributes: comfort, ignorance, greed, laziness and power.
One must banish them (the thiests) from rational discussions as they always resort to name calling and other rhetorical devices. This just sucks down the discussion to where they want it: non-intellectual point scoring.
The dogmatic mind won't ever get the subtlety and humility required to do science: They do not realise that maths and science are about as close to studying God as you can get (Yes, even closer than most "spiritual" practices)! Religious folk just don't understand intellectual humility at all. (got to wave the red flag! :-))
The "new athiesim" is well timed self defence. I can see the need for secular society to once again break free from the secretive machinations of the religious minorities.

"agree with the new atheists, religion is a problem, it distorts our view of the world. However Christian faith, in its purity cannot be confused with religion. After all, the history of Israel, as illustrated in the Old Testament, is a history of a nation’s flirtation with religion to its peril. Likewise, when Christianity entered the Greek world it encountered all kinds of religious notions that it had to deal with. The tragedy of Christianity is that from being the religion to end all religions it eventually succumbed and is now popularly counted as only one among the religions. A deeper analysis will reveal otherwise" - Sells

-- The Christian faith as preached by the Churches is a fourth century dogma at its foundation. Hellenisation [Koine] entered Christianity [Paul] not the other way around. The Greeks [Attic] that occupied the Holy Lands, are linked more closely to Alexander the Great than first century Rome. The emphasis on language is deliberate because the former is more likely what Jesus knew whereas the latter as stated, Paul.

The OT follows the typical pattern of tribal religions.

After thinking for years that I was a devout praticing atheist I have now been reclassified to become a 'New Anti- Dogmatist'. Wow!
My objection to organized religion also applies to sport. Both systems advocate noble principles then don't follow them.

Regarding the difference between religion and dogma, I think with religion you are looking at a belief in a higher being which cannot err (in contrast to the humans that believe in him/her/them/whatever). Dogma is simply a belief in anything regardless of the facts. Creationism is both a form of dogma and part of some people's religion.

Now, I guess you could say I "believe" that the Sun not the Earth is the centre of the solar system. But only provisionally - until it is refuted with evidence. So that "belief" is not dogmatic.

Does that help?

Of the authors mentioned, I've only read Dawkins, and only just finished The God Delusion recently, and so can comment only on him.
I think it's unfair to say that Dawkins is an anti-dogmatist: he's not interested in the finer details of theistic belief, nor whether the believer believes their stuff dogmatically.
Dawkins is against people believing stuff without there being good reason to do so. He's convinced that the scientific method gives people good reason to believe stuff in the scientific sense: regard conclusions as true until further evidence proves to the contrary.
Further, he's convinced that Darwin's natural selection provides good explanations of the religious phenomenon: much better than the other way around.
Dawkins can be regarded as spiritual, due to his response to the natural world, but desires not to use this or similar terms, so as not to be confuced with being religious.
As to wanting to convert, I think Dawkins is rather trying to innoculate people against falling into a theistic trap. That it may help people out of the theistic trap is also possible, and good, but people will have already travelled a little way towards unbelief before they come accross him anyway, and a little further still before they will be open to the arguments, I think.

The human species will be forever on an evolutionary journey -religion is just a hangover from primitive man's need to explain the inexplicable.

I get sick of having to explain why I am an atheist and hearing the tired old mantras of humility, believing in something greater than ourselves etc etc. You get the drift. You only have to look at the wonder of the earth we live on to know that we are just but one humble element in a complex and fragile ecosystem and the natural will always preside over the supernatural.

> if God can have a meaning and purpose without being created, then so can you.< said wizofaus to GP
>in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods< said the serpent to Eve (Gen 3:4)
-–––
pelican,
> I get sick of having to explain why I am an atheist and hearing the tired old mantras... < I can sympathise with you. I too would “get sick of having to explain why I am a Christian and hearing the tired old mantras…” except I do not understand who forces you to explain against your will? I thought the purpose of participating in forums like this is to widen one’s horizon by trying to understand the other perspective, rather than being converted (or expecting others to convert to my perspective with my horizon).

Hi George
No force makes me explain against my will - just sharing a portion of my experiences, not of this forum but of real life. That might be answering the door to religious folk, chatting to friends about the meaning of life etc etc. Experience shows that arguments about religion never amount to much other than a good chat amongst friends, each usually solidfying their own beliefs and shaking their heads at the others refusal to 'see' (on both sides of the argument).

I don't judge anyone for being a Christian, Buddhist, Muslim or Pagan and hope they don't judge me not having the same faith. While I might not agree with one view or another, I certainly understand the potential attraction of religion to some people and the role that religion has played to shape our moral values through the ages. Perhaps there is an argument for religion as a necessary part of man's evolution towards a more natural altruism ie. that is the urge to behave with compassion for compassions sake itself or to do good without any other agenda.

Would this be possible without first having the 'sense' of religion - I can't answer that one. The human mind whether presented individually or as a power of the mass is a mystery.

Hi pelican,
thanks for your sincere and tolerant words. It was exactly this kind of exchange of insights that I had in mind when I spoke of widening one’s horizon without wanting to persuade, to convert.

> I certainly understand ... the role that religion has played to shape our moral values through the ages. Perhaps there is an argument for religion as a necessary part of man's evolution towards a more natural altruism<

Religion, especially Christianity, definitely played a role not only in shaping our moral values, but also our desire to understand the world we live in through scientific investigations. What is open to discussion is only the form and importance of its role (positive as well as negative) in this. My personal view, as controversial as it might seem, is, that medieval Christianity played the remarkable role of giving rise to both the thesis and antithesis that led to the synthesis called Enlightenment and modernity.

I can also understand, though not share, the view that this role should be left to history, i.e. that Christianity, after having fulfilled its role in the evolution of mankind, has become irrelevant for our contemporary understanding of Goodness and Truth.

This reminds me of the view, expressed by some people 50 years ago when computers arrived, that now mathematicians have become redundant because their work could be done by computers, although nobody denied that without mathematicians there would never be computers. Well, it is certainly true that much of what mathematicians did before, mainly things involving algorithmic processes, were now done more efficiently by computers supervised by computer scientists, not mathematicians. However, mathematical thinking is much more than performing algorithms, although some second rate mathematicians could not do anything else but that, and they, indeed, became redundant.

Perhaps in the same sense much of what belonged to the realm of religion is now better taken care of by science and secular institutions, but not everything. However, that irreducible extra, is much harder to define than that part of mathematics which cannot be left to computers capable only of following algorithms.