Carl Mather,

Since belief is psychological rather than intellectual religious people are pretty much immune to logical argument, the need for a sky father is very compelling. The argument that we need to be religious to possess a moral sense has been refuted many times over the centuries, believers never seem to get the message.It's appalling that the menace of institutionalized religion to the liberal democratic secular state still exists in the 21st century. I wonder if the graph overstates the loss of scientific progress with the collapse of classical civilization. Roman society was conservative, there's no reason to believe it could have developed along the same lines as Europe after the Enlightenment.

Well presented, Carl, however,I'd like to qualify your phrase concerning your discussing religious ideas with followers of Islam and Buddhism.

Islam certainly is a religion with a belief in a god, but Buddhism is not.

It is an atheist lifestyle, based on awareness and understanding of philosophy, psychology and spirituality.

Buddhists deny the existence of any supernatural being, yet remain grateful for the teachings of Siddhatta Gotama, a Nepalese prince born 2600 years ago who gained complete enlightenment, hence the Sanskrit term "Buddha".
This gratitiude underlies much of the ceremony and ritual which serves to maintain followers' awareness of the truths which the Buddha taught.
The steady rejection of religion by a more enlightened society is seeing an increased acceptance of the morality of this lifestyle.

I think there comes a time when irrational hatred even if it comes with a colourful a graph ceases to be a ‘hit getter’ for OLO. There comes a time when people will start to switch off. Repetition after repetition of anti Christian screeds that barely even deign to include an argument within all the vitriol time and time again bypass ordinary editorial control.

How many times have Christians had to cop such prejudice? The article merely dishes up what has been reheated and served up to us dozens of times before. This kind of popular prejudice has been adequately answered, in excruciatingly patient detail (speaking from my own experience). What is the value, I ask, of an article that contains not a single new argument or valid piece of data, or insight? Is it the graph that dazzled the editor? I can’t believe anyone would take it seriously.

There comes a time when it gets a bit old.

Am I so far out of bounds that OLO cannot direct prospective authors to previous articles and comments? Direct them to an introductory article on history or philosophy?

I presume an article was rejected in favour of this one.

I’d like to see THAT article!

I think everyone whether atheist or theist would like a bit more quality, people don’t care whether it is pro or anti Christian as long as it doesn’t insult our intelligence.

No reasonable atheist would dare try and say this article was more than blatant mere prejudice.

Do individuals really want OLO to be known as the place where there are virtually no standards regarding intellectual quality whatsoever?

Is OLO happy with the inevitable intelligent comment going elsewhere?

I am somewhat sympathetic to the belief that religious doctrine can be harmful to society, but to bring up paedophilia and rely on the impact of what happened hundreds of years ago to denigrate modern religion does not advance this debate at all. I am not in any way religious, but I can accept that a lot of people find great spiritual comfort in their faith and that this can benefit the wider society.

We could similarly argue that past scientific research, including that in the classic ancient civilizations, has been commonly used to invent to new weapons to kill people, including, more recently, weapons of mass destruction. So should we denigrate all scientific research as a result? Of course not, it brings many benefits to society.

The graph that masqueraded as some sort of science was very colourful, but really looked like nonsense. How was scientific advancement being measured? And what assumptions were being made about continued growth of technoclogy in that time? Complete rubbish really.

I am also intrigued that Carl Mather believes that University graduates are any more intelligent than any one else when it comes to sprirtual matters. My experience of teaching at univeristies was that critical thinking was sadly lacking, giving way to multi-choice components of exams and short answer questions. These have no place in exams meant to test critical thinking. University was more like an extension of high school with longer courses. The arrogance of his last paragraph showed that Mr Mather's crictical thinking is, perhaps, not quite as good as he might think.

To finish off, I do not ascribe to any religion and am very sceptical of being told what I should think on issues by people often shielded from the reality of modern life and blinded by doctrine.

It is a reasonable assumption that no one person is the arbiter of what articles should or should not appear on OLO.

Religion has dominated civilisation ubiquitously since Eve was a girl. It is now time to examine the claims of the many faiths because of their impacts on civilisation.

Everyone is entitled to an opinion and if certain articles upset, annoy or disturb, then don’t read them.

Funny, how, as soon as words appear pointing out unsavoury aspects of religion, the immediate response is to condemn the writer and the contents in any way possible. This leads one to think that some people hang on to their faith with a very tenuous hold indeed.

One affect of gratuitous postings on any given thread, is that it causes a kind of subtle censorship, which psychologically limits others from responding.

My guess is that sometimes, that is the intention.

David

Whether we subscribe to it or not, religious belief has been a core feature of the human experience, and these articles about morality, ethics and religion are part of an extremely important discussion about what role belief should play in the management of human affairs.

Both received doctrine and rigorous science are important in this discussion, but so is opinion. As a result, it’s entirely appropriate that OLO should provide a platform for this simple opinion piece.

That said, I’m a little bothered by the lack of a citation for the “graph”, and the failure to question any of its assumptions. I’ve tracked it down, and the original is highly qualified, described as “an approximate graph of the advancement of science through time.” http://www.nobeliefs.com/comments10.htm However even here there is no acknowledgement of the major assumption that scientific progress is linear and constant.

Similarly, there is no support for the central assertion that “History clearly shows that any society that relies on religion for moral guidance hastily plummets into barbarism.” The fact that some religious-based states are sinking into chaos is no logical basis for the view that religion leads to barbarism.

So, while I largely agree with Mather’s underlying opinions, I could wish for some better evidence to support them