How is evolution "Perfectly beyond emperical (sic) validation?"

Scientists validate it on a day-to-day basis.

Just one discovery of an out-of-place fossil would be enough to invalidate it (though of course, more realistically, you have to first prove that the fossil isn't a fake, and didn't got where it was through some freaky but explanable set of circumstances).

We can and do even make predictions about the future with it: e.g. that microbes will evolve to resist anti-bacterial agents.

Interesting article but it gets off to a bad start in the first sentence:

"The idea that human beings universally need some form of mythological belief has been one of the mainstays of the defenders of faith for centuries."

This is a "straw person argument" and it trades on the abiguity of "mythological belief".

Defenders of various faiths tend to think that their beliefs are NOT myths, (though I do not share their view). The very act of providing an apologetic for a religious belief implies that the apologist thinks that the belief is somewhat real- ontologically or metaphysically, and so, since real, there is evidence and warrant for the belief. Others ought to believe it as well.

On the other hand, critics of religion think that religious beliefs ARE myths, in a perjorative sense. Since religous beliefs cannot be true, then they must be false.

Somewhere in the middle are those who think that the essence of religion consists of myths and useful stories. (Think of Joseph Campbell). For these, "myth" hasn't a derogative sense. It is of no concern whether stories are true or false. The value is in the message and the meaning that the myths convey.

So, what sense of myth does the author intend?

Occam, "It is of no concern whether stories are true or false. The value is in the message and the meaning that the myths convey."

It is of great concern when followers insist that the stories are literal truth and that others need to follow the message in those stories. When they make threats (and target children with them) of an eternity of pain and suffering if their story is not accepted and followed.

The meanings don't fit all circumstances but some by insisting that there stories are the TRUTH try to make them fit all circumstances.

There is value in learning from myths and stories but those who insist that their stories (and there alone) are true are a risk to all.

R0bert

The reason why people don't flock to be atheists isn't because they need the crutch of religion, but because a consistent atheism doesn't fit the everyday experience of life.

To be consistent, an atheist would need to understand reality in strictly materialistic terms. Reality would be thought of as an intricate arrangement of atoms, organised according to material causation, such as natural selection.

What this materialism means is that free will is an illusion, since everything we do would have a material cause and would therefore be pre-determined. If science were sophisticated enough, it could (in a purely material universe) predict future choices and events.

Life could not be, as Kelly O'Connor claims, "magical" or "mysterious" - it's noteworthy that she, as an "atheist", experiences life to have these qualities - either she has fallen for an illusion or else her atheism is untrue.

Most people do experience the purely material side of existence, but they experience a spiritual side too. When we look at something and find it beautiful, we don't experience this in materialistic terms as a physical response connected to an advantage in natural selection - we experience it as true in its own terms - that there really is a quality of beauty which points to something significant and meaningful.

I find it interesting that when you read books by even the most bellicose atheists, they can never keep consistently to a materialist standpoint - in discussing life they always fall back to qualities and experiences which an atheist ought, logically, to consider as illusions at best.

And yet they expect everyone else to do what they themselves cannot do.

Mark Richardson wrote:

"Most people do experience the purely material side of existence, but they experience a spiritual side too. When we look at something and find it beautiful, we don't experience this in materialistic terms as a physical response connected to an advantage in natural selection - we experience it as true in its own terms - that there really is a quality of beauty which points to something significant and meaningful.'"

If you substitute "an emotional" in place of 'a spiritual' you can fairly accurately express how this particular atheist functions without needing to believe in myths and fairy tales

If there is no diety,that does not make religions irrelevant.Many horrid things have been perpetrated in the name of religion.Religion however has bluffed many ordinary people into being honest.Now honesty is one of the cornerstones of a successful economy.Look around the planet and see the reality.An economy can tolerate a few at the top being dishonest,but when everyone is on the take and seeks not to work,an economy faulters.Even though China is a booming economy,it has a big corruption problem.This is probably being held in check to a degree by the iron fist of communism.Indonesia has enormous corruption problems.Islam doesn't seem to have saved them.It could be due to the confusing signals this religion poses,eg you can lie to those who perceive to be your enemy.But the Christian religion has help make western civilisations very successful.The existence of god is irrelevant,it is about the ethical and moral stuctures that premote fairness,good will and work ethic that counts.

Atheism has evolved as an opposite to theism,and therefore as a belief system,has a long way to go in matching religions in providing building blocks for civilisation.That is not to say you can't be ethical and atheist at the same time.Human beings have evolved with certain parameters on their behaviour,if it wasn't the environment,it was a self imposed structure such as religion.Laws may limit our behaviour but they do not premote ethics or social harmony.Atheism needs more structure and depth before it can be considered a credible belief system.