Peter

Apologies if I did miss the point of your article but I am not sure that I have. I guess what I am arguing is that science does not do this - atheists might use scientific argument to refute religous claims but science is really minding it's own business and getting on with the business of the pyhsical world. There are branches of science that explore areas like the paranormal and there are scientists who hold religious beliefs.

I personally don't aspire to join organisations like the Atheist Foundation because they could become just another form of crusading evangelism (that you mentioned). Although I am not sure one can use the word evangelism to describe the non-religious but it is useful for descriptive purposes. I cannot see the point in forming a group that exists purely to refute the presence of the supernatural but in a secular society we have to acknowledge the right for different belief systems and the right to form groups of the like-minded.

Globally, I don't see athesists preaching or undertaking the cause with the same zeal or missionary purpose as various religious groups. Even Dawkins writes his books and makes a few appearances but it is hardly a global cohesive group.

Respect is important. However, let's be honest the very views held by some religious folk (not just Christians) makes assumptions about the morality or values held by those who are different to them as though somehower religious values are held to a higher moral standard. To be fair religoius people are probably also tired of athiests implying they lack intelligence for blind faith. I've oversimplified but there is validity in both views.

Continued....

George,
Your, “An absolute truth, or Truth, is directly unattainable..." basically aligns with the sentiments as expressed by Einstein, "A knowledge of the existence of something we cannot penetrate...". I think Einstein has much to offer as does Buddha on some of the basic approaches to religion – no doubt you’d agree (to a point..). We do tend, perhaps, to make things more complicated than we ought – e.g. many people, including Einstein, are attracted to a simple rendition of the Gospel story. Although can been read on varying levels of sophistication, there is a straight forward morality expressed most can identify with (even if not practice).

The second part of the Aritostilan idea, as we’re both agreed, cannot refer to the directly unattainable ‘truths’ but more to the modern educational notion of a ‘body of knowledge’, or a discipline such as sociology, economics or theology. In this context it is far from being naïve.

Becoming a generally educated human being also involves some grasp of the history of history and of philosophy, and some understanding of the philosophy of history and philosophy. Not everyone is not called on to be a lawyer, a physician, an accountant, or an engineer - nor for that matter to engage in some field of historical or scientific research. But, certainly everyone is called on to philosophise – philosophy is everyone’s business.

As opposed to opinion, dialectical writing certainly abstains from making judgments about the truth or falsity of the philosophical views or doctrines it surveys. To be a philosopher, one must make up one's own mind about where the truth lies on the great issues that have filled the pages of philosophical controversy. The dialectic existing between Christianity at its very inception and the manifestation of it now continues. David f correctly points to some of the anomaly as shown in history, albeit with the vantage point of a more objective review. The German Lutherans specifically separated biblical teachings (morality) from its teachings of the State and thus legitimized the Nazi State ideology. Undoubtedly, the perversely anti-Semitic writings of Martin Luther didn’t help.

continued ...

Peter you said: "I indicated that science has broken its bounds, that of enquiry into the physical world, and has become a total world view. That is not, as you point out, its purpose. If you read some of the excellent comments in this thread you will find out that we are not attacking science but its usage to promote a totalitarian view that cancels views on humanity that are not empirical."

I appreciate why you might hold this view. There are certainly events that we cannot always explain but until recent years (perhaps because of Dawkins) there was no real open debate about religion.

Is it reasonable to be asking about the role of religion in the larger public domain? Or to question some of the long held 'truths'? Religious thought has always been allowed to occupy a large part of the public domain so it is perhaps understanding why it might not want to share this space with a newer more public opposing view. Is it valid to ask if religion is a positive or a negative aspect of human interaction and cohesiveness? This might be more a philosophical debate than a scientific one.

World-views not based on faith also have the potential for causing human suffering. However those not based on faith can be questioned and possibly corrected as one looks at the results.

It is in the nature of faith that it can neither be subjected to examination nor corrected. One can only keep it or lose it. If one loses faith there is a void in one’s life. Often it is filled by another world-view that relies on faith. When the Jehovah’s Witnesses come to my door I sometimes ask them to tell me about themselves. Those who decide to do so often tell a story of traipsing from one fundamentalist faith to another. It is better to depend on critical thinking and doubt in the first place.

In a multicultural society the damage due to faith is usually limited as one generally has to reach a modus vivendi with those of competing faiths. The Cronulla riots are an example of the failure of the modus vivendi.

However, it is still a danger. I am quite concerned that the present candidate for vice-president on the Republican ticket is a creationist and speaks of the Iraqi war as ‘God’s will’.

If she becomes president I do not trust her to make decisions on the application of force that are sensible, wise or compassionate. I do not trust her to allocate funds for science or education in the best interests of the people of the United States.

World-views based on faith are contaminants. Respect the sanctity of doubt.

Pelican

I agree with you that until relatively recently religion was spared close scrutiny. Unaccountable and tax-free, religion as an organisation has held an elite position.

Therefore, since the likes of Dawkins, Harris, Hitchens and our own inimitable Phillip Adams have had the temerity to question and call to account religion via the public sphere, we have seen many religious promoters attacking what is a democratic right to critique an organisation that has no basis in fact; which relies purely upon special dispensation by government and faith by its adherents.

For too long, non-religious and other religions such as Buddhism (which can be classified as atheist as it does not worship a single deity) have been maligned as less moral, less worthy. This is discrimination at best and perpetuation of hatred at worst. It is why many of us take offense, knowing we are decent, worthy beings who have no need to resort to the dubious philosophies and stories of a text from another time, another culture. We have been judged by the religious for long enough, now it is the turn of the religious to be judged.

For this reason children need to be taught about religions (all of them) instead of being indoctrinated into the religion of the culture into which they happened to be born. I can understand that DavidF feels religion can be a contaminate when it is foisted upon children to young to discern between fact and myth. If we teach our children to reason and not hate others for the most superficial excuse (religion) then this world may have a chance at peace.

Davidf, your continued use of the word contamination is nothing more than emotive language. The persuasive power in debate of such language is only good for those who get sucked in by such words.

You talk about world-views that are based on faith and world-views that are not based on faith. I’m wondering if you could give me an example of one that is not based on faith. (I doubt there is one.)

Even for scientific methodology, the propositions which must be true for science itself to work (the orderliness of the universe, and the non-capriciousness of the natural law, for example) must be accepted by faith as axioms. Its Christian theological underpinning is one reason why science flourished so much in Western civilization due to its belief in an orderly God, true to his Word and following predictable laws, who imposed his character onto his original creation.

You speak in horrific terms about the Holocaust perpetrated by the Nazis and the millions eliminated by Marxist regimes without mentioning that the faith assumptions underlying Hitler’s and Marx’s philosophies were heavily contributed to by the emerging ‘science’ in the form of Darwinian selection. Or did the Nazi doctrine of Aryan superiority which supported subjugating or eliminating non-Aryan people have nothing to do with Hitler’s reading of Darwin, influencing his belief that non-Aryan races were less advanced?

Don’t think extermination of undesirables can’t happen again. This month in the Victorian LA they will be voting on overturning the current abortion laws to insure that abortion is totally available freely on demand. This is nothing short of redefining what it is to be a human being, despite everything we know about genetics and every other branch of true science (except for evolutionary science) telling us that those developing in the womb are totally human (this is apart from the legal technicality about them having yet to obtain birth certificates).

You speak of the Lutheran and other churches succumbing easily to the lies of Hitler. That was indeed a terrible tragedy. Today’s church will not roll over quite so easily.