The following sentence comes from an interesting article (http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/06/opinion/sunday/the-blessings-of-atheism.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1):

“The secular community is fearful of seeming to proselytize.”

Do our atheist friends here agree that not only those of the “secular community” but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?

Another quote from that article:

“We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.”

Fair enough. Can we also “want our fellow citizens (including atheists) to respect our deeply held conviction that the belief in God (usually, but not always, accompanied by a belief in “afterlife”) lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth”?

George wrote: Can we also “want our fellow citizens (including atheists) to respect our deeply held conviction that the belief in God (usually, but not always, accompanied by a belief in “afterlife”) lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth”?

Dear George,

I respect you as an individual. I would not harm you, do anything to hinder you or interfere with you maintaining any convictions you have.

However, I think your conviction is a mistaken one and see no reason that I should respect it although I respect your right to have such a conviction. I also respect the right of anyone to have a Ptolemaic view of the solar system, but I see no reason to respect the conviction itself.

I believe that every human deserves respect. I do not believe that every human conviction deserves respect.

The fervour with which a conviction is held has nothing to do with the validity of the conviction.

Dear George,

It would be a shame indeed if we all "became fearful
of seeming to proselytize." We should not discourage
people to think about the issues involved. We need to
encourage anything that teaches people to think for themselves
and having a wide variety of opinions on "heavy issues,"
(because they are "head" issues) should be encouraged
not discouraged. Isn't the purpose of education to teach
us to be problem solvers, to gain new insights, and
to determine our own positions?

We need to think about our imperfect but real world
as it is, as it was, and also as it might be.
Through open and shared discussions we are provided with
vicarious experience, to extend our knowledge of people
and places. They help compare, alter, or strengthen our
values and behaviour by learning about individuals and
groups with different beliefs and practices.

We should have a whole culture, 'not just the plums,'
and learn the art of comparison and subconsciously
acquire critical standards. We need to be able to succeed
fully and freely in discussing openly the important
issues of the day. Great ideas and great societies
afterall, are the products of free inquiry. They must
continue to remain free.

Dear David,

Thanks for your reaction which reminds me of the Catholic “respect the sinner but not the sin”.

However, the quote, that I tried to construct a mirror image of, had nothing to do with respecting scientific “facts” or theories that have been shown untenable (your Ptolemaic view of the solar system). Here we would hardly differ.

It had to do with convictions that “absence of an afterlife”, or “belief in God” respectively, ”lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth”. These convictions are on a philosophical or moral, not scientific level, they are about tolerating other peoples’ conviction that their belief or unbelief in afterlife/God provides a good motivation for actions accepted by both sides as good.

Of course, not every conviction deserves respect - there are absurd, evil etc world-views that cannot be respected. However, I made it explicit what was the alternative world-view I contrasted with the author’s. Your blunt last sentence seems to indicate that you can respect only world-views and philosophical positions (again, we are not talking here about science, or politics) that agree with yours. This is certainly not my position and, I would have thought, neither yours.

Dear Lexi,

Thanks for the wise words. Of course, I agree with them. Am I right assuming that, you (although not being a self-professed atheist), would answer my two questions with YES in both case, that you agree that in general theists and atheist should have the same rights to proselytize and deserve the same respect for their world views (with the same restrictions applying to both in both cases)?

Dear George,

Definitely yes in both cases.
I'm not an atheist. My views have been
well documented on this Forum. It shall
be interesting to read what other points
of view are expressed on this topic.
Should be a robust discussion.

Dear George,

I respect some worldviews that do not agree with mine and do not respect other worldviews that differ from mine. Those I differ with and respect are those in which I feel I don't know enough to be sure of my opinion. However, I feel that belief in God has no more validity than a belief in the Ptolemaic system.

Of course I may be wrong in my opinion, but there I stand. Martin Luther is sometimes quoted as saying: "Here I stand. I can do no other." I say the same.

Dear George,

My position is exactly analogous with the Christian position of hating the sin but not the sinner.

The verb, respect, in my dictionary has two meanings, to esteem or have regard for.

I esteem and have regard for you because your previous postings have made you sound like an eminently reasonable, knowledgeable and civilised person.

I do not esteem or have regard for your religious convictions because I cannot ascribe any validity to those convictions. Apparently you feel them strongly and feel they do have validity. My lack of respect for those convictions does not mean I do not respect you as a person.

My oldest son had a Trotzkyist period. I had absolutely no respect for his political opinions in that time. However, I did and do love him deeply.

We certainly need to call evil evil and good good. The problem is that different world views demand different responses to good and evil. In some culture uncles marrying young girls is good. In some cultures killing the unborn is considered good. In some cultures homosexuals are stoned. To respect and love all people is good however to respect all beliefs leads to such idiotic policy as our current Immigration one. The reality is that all are fallen creatures and need a Saviour. Only a conviction from ones Maker will unsear the conscience of fallen creatures. The vacum of morality left by athiesm have done more evil than all religous wars put together.

Runner,

“The vacum of morality left by athiesm have done more evil than all religous wars put together.”

You might want to adjust your spell-checker and grammar program.

Some questions for you about the above comment.

1. Can you enunciate what is this vacuum of atheism of which you speak?

2. How does freely chosen atheism by individuals do ‘evil’?

3. What is this alleged ‘evil’ that is directly attributed to atheism freely chosen by individuals?

4. What is the alleged remedy for this ‘evil’ allegedly done by atheism freely chosen by individuals?

5. Is the remedy to bring back widespread childhood indoctrination of your specific religion/god or should atheists just believe in something which has no evidence at all or have you something else in mind?

6. What is your formula for picking the right religion/god and why is your formula better than that used by the thousands of other religions?

David

I don't know how to answer George's post. It is an interesting article and one that poses some questions worthy of deeper thought. My initial response was similar to Davids about respect the person not the view with the obvious caveat of 'no harm'. But who defines harm?

Some people believe the act of being a non-believer in the supernatural is in itself harmful to the greater morality. Some atheists think religion and evil acts committed in the name of religion means religion should be banned. There are some extreme views out there but thankfully it is not the majority (not in Australia anyway for the most part).

Simply yes we should respect each other's views. It seems a no-brainer really but I acknowledge it is not as easy as it seems.

As far as proselytizing. There is nothing intrinsically wrong with putting forward a view. Much depends on the forum and context. For example it would be wrong in my view to push a particular belief system in a public school which is open to all people and is not established (as say a Catholic School) with a formal religious agenda (other than perhaps a study of comparative religions/cultures/ethics).

As an atheist I am also willing to put forward a view but I don't go around trying to convince people they are 'wrong' (from my perspective) rather preferring to take a reactive approach. People need to find their own place and examine their own thought processes and reasonings but proselytizing in many cases seems to me to be overly intrusive and often the act of fervent believers with many agendas, not all ethically based.

We can all strive to be good people and to treat others with respect and how people choose to enable those behaviours seems a personal choice.

pelican,

“Some people believe the act of being a non-believer in the supernatural is in itself harmful to the greater morality. Some atheists think religion and evil acts committed in the name of religion means religion should be banned. There are some extreme views out there but thankfully it is not the majority (not in Australia anyway for the most part).”

I agree and would point out that most of the views that atheism is harmful would originate from those with a religious perspective. I don’t know of many or any atheists of any worth that think religion should be banned. No doubt there would be some but they are negligible and ineffectual.

“Simply yes we should respect each other's views. It seems a no-brainer really but I acknowledge it is not as easy as it seems.”

Again, I agree, but respecting the views of others must come with a caveat. If those views lead to impinging upon others, it is a right and a duty to object to them.

As an example: In Uganda at the moment there is a push to bring in the death penalty for homosexual acts. Millions of people throughout the world have objected to that view by petition. The views of those attempting to initiate such a foul act should not be respected.

And then we move down the scale to lesser savoury views but still in the objectionable class.

I personally take the right and duty to object to harmful views very seriously.

David

David

thanks for your majoring on something very minor (spelling and grammar). I take it you knew what I was saying by your questions. I must say your wording for your questions are quite ambiguous.

1. Can you enunciate what is this vacuum of atheism of which you speak?

The idiotic belief that we are not being held accountable by a Creator has led to many self appointed gods. Hence because our court systems and judges reward crimminals and punishes victims many young people think they can do what they want with no accountability. The killing of the unborn is just one example of this albiet usually by older people.

2. How does freely chosen atheism by individuals do ‘evil’? did I say that?

Failure to give thanks to the One who gives air to breathe let alone every other good gift in life is plain rude and ignorant.

3. What is this alleged ‘evil’ that is directly attributed to atheism freely chosen by individuals?

pride, greed, lust, murder and every other sin that is common to all men.

4. What is the alleged remedy for this ‘evil’ allegedly done by atheism freely chosen by individuals?

To open their minds to truth instead of inventing their own brand.

5. Is the remedy to bring back widespread childhood indoctrination of your specific religion/god or should atheists just believe in something which has no evidence at all or have you something else in mind?

The failure to teach children about their Maker and Saviour is child abuse. The fantasy of something from nothing doctrine should be exposed for the fraud it is rather than indoctrinating kids.

6. What is your formula for picking the right religion/god and why is your formula better than that used by the thousands of other religions?

Ask Jesus. You might leatrn something from His writings, claims and teachings.

Dear runner,

Happy New Year. I expected that you would still be deeply mired in your superstition, and you still are.

Hope you will have a good year.

runner,

Mmmm…Answer one is a personal opinion until you back it up with some facts. Can you do that thanks. And, abortion is mentioned as though ‘evil’ atheism is at fault. Not so, dear runner.

The below figures are in the ballpark from other surveys I have looked at. It's from December 16, 2004. I think the figures have climbed somewhat since then.

http://www.theage.com.au/news/National/Evangelicals-back-prochoice-survey/2004/12/15/1102787150247.html

“A survey of social attitudes last year found that 53 per cent of evangelical Christians - defined as Baptists, Lutherans and Pentecostals - agreed with the statement "a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion".”

And;

“In her paper, Dr Betts noted that a recent random poll of 4270 voters by the Australian National University confirmed religious affiliation influenced social attitudes to abortion. It found 93 per cent of people with no religion said they were pro-choice, while 77 per cent with a religious affiliation also were pro-choice.”

Answer 2. is again, an opinion.

Answer 3. is again, a personal opinion that you would love to believe and it doesn't show much respect for the atheists on this forum or anywhere else? Have you some facts to back up these wild assertions?

Answer 4. is an example of religious arrogance. Nothing new there.

Answer 5. borders on the insane and requires no comment from me.

Answer 6. goes a considerable distance over that border.

Don’t look now but your hatred of humanity and terror of hell is showing. Who did that to you?

David

“We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.”

Neither this nor the opposite claim are straight forward:

If there is an afterlife, then what we do to others, say we break their neck rendering them quadriplegic, has LESS moral importance since this is not their only life and they have many more chances to make up for it and have a full/whole life later.

OTOH, it has MORE moral importance because it forms a habit which may increase our tendency to be cruel to others even beyond the grave (ours).

Which argument wins, on balance, is not clear.

Similarly, the belief that we are held accountable by a Creator, on the one hand causes us to hurt others less, but on the other hand it makes us insensitive to other people's (and animal's) suffering since the reason we help others and abstain from harming them is not moral, but a practical one - we only seek to escape punishment.

So does a belief in an afterlife or in a creator make us more or less moral on balance?

I think the answer differs for each of us, depending on our personality. If we are at a stage where we need a belief in order to avoid sin, then that belief is good for us at the time (regardless of its objective correctness or otherwise), but for others, belief itself can become a cause for sin, then it is overdue.

George I will refrain from giving my view.
It would upset at least one poster.
So retreating from and interesting thread.

David

'“A survey of social attitudes last year found that 53 per cent of evangelical Christians - defined as Baptists, Lutherans and Pentecostals - agreed with the statement "a woman should have the right to choose whether or not she has an abortion".”

since when did truth depend on public opinion? Most indocrinated people don't even accept a baby is human life if it means killing it 'guilt ' free. The Nazis did not accept Jews as humans in the same way.

what amazes me as a believer in Christ is the number of agnostic parents (not many atheist) who want their kids to have a religous education. That probably explains why the large silent majority support Chaplaincy programs while the small loud minority froth at the mouth and get so much national broadcaster airtime. I don't know any Christian parents who want their kids to ignore their consciences and be brainwashed by the fundie atheists.

runner,

There is no such thing as truth. There are statements that are correct, incorrect or indeterminate. I wasn't using statistics to prove anything except to counter your false claim that atheism alone is intrinsically ‘evil’. I did that by showing that religious people also consider that a woman should have the right to choice concerning termination.

You are correct that truth doesn't depend on public opinion. It depends on people drawing conclusions using empathy and compassion using all the known facts. It certainly doesn't depend on a narrow, one-eyed view of a world allegedly full of demons and devils.

It is the lowest form of argument to align the Nazi dictatorship with women needing an abortion. Nazi’s actively sought the death of many groups for ideological reasons. You do a huge disservice to women by your crass comments. Their choice is not ideological, it is personal and has stuff all to do with you. You are a very ignorant and loathsome person for carrying on like you do. Think the Phelps Family and how most of the planet abhors them. Women do not need your ideologically chosen words. You are a disgrace to the human race. You are a robot to infamy.

And then you go on about ‘fundie atheists’ when you are the perfect example of fundamentalist Christianity at its most dangerous, disgusting and nasty manifestation.

I’ll give you one more chance.

What is atheism ‘brainwashing’ children with and how are the doing it?

Disqualification will follow, anything called 'evil' the lie of evolution, abortion, homosexual inanities.

Without these words your vocabulary is severely limited but give it a go.

David

David

like all moral relativist you are full of contradictions. You write

'There is no such thing as truth. ' and in the next breadth
'when you are the perfect example of fundamentalist Christianity '

suddenly you believe in absolutes at least when it suits your nasty squawking.

runner,

That was an incompressible post. I’ll assume you are referring to “the perfect example of fundamentalist Christianity”. That is not a reference to any absolute. There are a finite number of fundamentalist Christians and you just happen to be a perfect example of the worst aspects of them.

Now, can we get on with answering the question thanks?

David

David

'I’ll give you one more chance.''

Oh how hilarous you are David. Do u really think you are god? Your wilful ignorance is astounding.

runner,

I'm glad you think me humorous because, generally speaking, I am. It is an important character trait that exists between reality and abysmal self-loathing which is more your forte.

No, I don't think I am a god, as I actually do exist and not just in your head like your god. I correspond with you and you make out your god talks to you. See the difference?

I presume you mean 'wilfully ignorant' as in 2 Peter 3:5. Well, if you mean I look at all the evidence and not just accept the words of others who could be lying, deluded or as a wild possibility, telling the truth, then, even though the description is wrong by a universe or two, yes I am, but I would call it wilfully enlightened. That means I made a choice and am not stuck in a time-warp invented by very ignorant tent-dwellers from a couple of thousand years ago. But, to each her/his own.

David

' Well, if you mean I look at all the evidence and not just accept the words of others who could be lying, '

exactly what you have chosen to do David. Jesus Himself never lied.

Dear david f,

I used the verb “respect” in exactly the same sense as the author of the linked to article; that was after all the point of my question. Also, “sin”, in distinction to “conviction” (that my question was about), has always an a priori negative connotation, so the question of respecting it does not arise. Hence I think that one could respect a conviction (like the one about what lends a greater moral importance to our actions on earth) even if one “feels” there is no validity in it. I do respect some (not all) convictions based on an atheist world-view, which still does not imply I can share them.

Let me repeat (also for runner and others), the questions this post was based on was not about belief or unbelief in God but about respecting other people’s convictions about what is a better incentive for moral actions.

>>I feel that belief in God has no more validity than a belief in the Ptolemaic system<<
Of course, you are entitled to your feeling, although there are certainly many more people - including scientists and philosophers - who say they believe in God (whatever they mean by that) than those who’d say they believe the earth is the centre of the universe (whatever that could mean today).

pelican,

Your post, as always, is insightful. As for my question, juxtaposed with the author’s, it is not about who is right, those who think that, with everything taken into account, it is better not to a have a belief in God and/or afterlife, or those who think otherwise. It was aimed at whether for a better functioning of an open society one should respect both positions. Perhaps because they both have a point.

As for proselytizing, my point again was to use the term in exactly the same sense as the author. Your explanations and qualifications on whether when and how to proselytize or not can be applied to both sides, theist or atheist. In particular, that in public schools one should not push a particular world-view, explicitly theist or anti-theist (you use the term “belief system”, that is OK with me, however some atheists seem to claim they do not have a belief system). Did I understand you properly?

Yuyutsu,

Thanks, I do not want to disagree only to point out again that the question was not about which world-view was better or who is right in their convictions but whether we should respect - obviously one cannot share them both - the two particular convictions.

Dear George,

Sorry I have not made it clear enough:

Given that both convictions are morally beneficial to some individuals, then it follows that both should be respected.

Hopefully people will hold onto and be proselytised into that particular conviction which personally spurs them on spiritually and not vice-versa.

Dear runner,

You have mentioned another one of your beliefs. You stated that Jesus never lied. How can you possibly know that?

runner,

You quote me with this,

>>>”Well, if you mean I look at all the evidence and not just accept the words of others who could be lying,…”<<<

And then state this.

“exactly what you have chosen to do David. Jesus Himself never lied.”

I assume you mean I accept the word of science about evolution. That is not accepting the words of others; it is accepting a checkable peer reviewed process that eventually does supply answers.

And juxtaposed to that is you accept the words from an ancient book written by people who had very little understanding of nature and who never met the alleged Jesus the Christ. The statement that, “Jesus Himself never lied.” is not testable. Jesus wrote no words, his followers did.

So, can you explain to me how you have ascertained that those followers were not deluded, mistaken, lying or telling the truth?

I'm really not sure why I'm bothering with you as it is pointless. I guess getting a better idea how a trapped mind thinks has some value. You might not understand this but I would undo the harm done to you if I could.

David

Dear David & David,

<<You stated that Jesus never lied. How can you possibly know that?>>

What's the one got to do with the other? Surely one doesn't need to know in order to believe!

<<You might not understand this but I would undo the harm done to you if I could.>>

If you manage to convince Runner that he is not accountable to a creator and as a result he starts robbing, raping and killing people, that harm will be upon your head.

His path to God involves Christianity while yours involves atheism. Both are valid for different individuals. Peace!

Yuyutsu
,
“If you manage to convince Runner that he is not accountable to a creator and as a result he starts robbing, raping and killing people, that harm will be upon your head.”

Or would you bear guilt for putting the ideas into his head?

Those negative actions are not within the normal operating range of the average person. Are you suggesting that runner is operating outside the normal range and is a psychopath controlled only by his fear of a god?

Should anyone who is attempting to make positive change in society only work to the lowest common denominator just in case the scenario you have outlined happens?

I see no evidence for such an assertion by the way, I just see ‘a very naughty boy’.

David

Dear George,

I went back to the article. The author wrote: “We do want our fellow citizens to respect our deeply held conviction that the absence of an afterlife lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.”

I see no reason that you should respect that belief. It is counter to what you believe. I repeat:

The verb, respect, in my dictionary has two meanings, to esteem or have regard for.

I see no reason for you to esteem my views in the matter of the afterlife and the degree to the moral importance it leads to our actions on earth. I also see no reason for you to regard my views to inform yours in the matter of the afterlife and the degree to the moral importance it leads to our actions on earth. I think the author made an unreasonable request.

Your posts are generally well reasoned and indicate that you are a caring and thoughtful individual. I respect you. However, I also believe that one of the hallmarks of civilisation is the ability to get along in friendship and peace with others some of whose ideas we do not respect.

I also set a high value on honesty although I will on occasion lie if I am asked by another person if they or their clothing look good. In discussing ideas I try to maintain a rigourous honesty unless it will cost me a punch in the nose. I do not expect you to respect all of my ideas, and I will not respect all of your ideas.

I will be civil and treat all of your statements with attention and courtesy, but there will be some that I do not respect.

David F,
How do you define civilisation?I'll presume you are referring to "Western" civilisation because as we see before us every day all of the other civilisations on the planet have radically different strutures.
Liberalism and European enlightenment belief systems are the bedrock of 21st century "Western" society and they're anything but tolerant of diverse opinions. "Tolerance" ie a supposedly unanimous, unspoken pact to respect the rights of others while still asserting one's own right to critique the convictions of those others isn't truly respectful of diversity or liberty. Criticism of another's convictions, even when framed in abstract or general terms still undermines their liberty as surely as a direct confrontation might, this logic after all is the underlying rationale underlying so called "hate speech" laws, is it not?

Someone that has never lied has probably never told the truth either.

Dear David,

<<Or would you bear guilt for putting the ideas into his head?>>

Why be guilty if those ideas help him and make him happy?

<<Are you suggesting that runner is operating outside the normal range and is a psychopath controlled only by his fear of a god?>>

I don't know Runner personally, but such things happened before, so statistically if you pull the support off a large enough number of people, one of them is likely to snap. More likely however, on the "normal" range, he will become depressed and may commit suicide, start taking drugs, gamble, neglect his job or mistreat his wife and children.

<<Should anyone who is attempting to make positive change in society only work to the lowest common denominator just in case the scenario you have outlined happens?>>

Establishing a single belief-system is not a positive change in society. It's not a question of "high" or "low", but of suitability: different people require different belief-systems.

Your particular religious path is atheism and it seems to work for you (it mostly suits intellectual type of people and is not an easy one), but surely you can name others who were unsuited to this path and the kind of discipline it requires, who have abused atheism and taken to crime (not necessarily major crimes, perhaps just tax avoidance and such), selfishness, greed, or are simply unhappy and unfulfilled as a result.

Hi David
'As an example: In Uganda at the moment there is a push to bring in the death penalty for homosexual acts. Millions of people throughout the world have objected to that view by petition. The views of those attempting to initiate such a foul act should not be respected.'

Of course we should object to views that invite harm or impinge on the rights of others no matter their origins, but I expect the vast majority of Christians and those of other religions would also object to the killing of homosexuals in Uganda.

When religion is used as the excuse to kill we should speak out however killing is not condoned by Christians. Religion, culture, level of education, economic wellbeing - all these factors intermingled point to the basis for some of these poorer decisions.

Yuyutsu,

Sorry, and please don't read anything into this, but I have no interest in talking in riddles. Nor do I wish to jump from philosophical to practical to metaphysical concepts. It's entirely unproductive, leading to endless circular discussion.

Take care,

David

Hi George

I do agree with you, the question has nothing to do with about who is right but is as you say about '...whether for a better functioning of an open society one should respect both positions. Perhaps because they both have a point.'

'Your explanations and qualifications on whether when and how to proselytize or not can be applied to both sides, theist or atheist.'

Yes this was implicit in my post. My example was to demonstrate my view from the point of an atheist but there are many examples applicable to theists and non-theists.

I used the phrase 'a particular belief system' meaning religious prolesytizing as related to the example of religion being taught in schools.

As to belief systems generally it would be hard to argue atheists don't have a belief system. Barring some differing values about women or homosexuals in some religions, I could not imagine where theists and non-theists would part as regards desirable behaviours in the manner we should treat others.

It is interesting that Helen Mirren, the actress, described herself (according to reports) as a 'Christian who doesn't believe in God'. Now obviously that does not make sense from a purely logical perspective, but I think I know what she means.

The fact is most Christian values are natural and commonsense human values that work in the interests of all people in respecting and living with each other in harmony, helping and making the world a better place for all.

Everyone is entitled to their views but it is how one's views impact on others that really matter, which is why there is a judiciary and a Rule of Law to protect everyone's rights within the legal framework. The biggest evolutionary step in civilised communities that man has achieved was to formally stop punishing people for differing world views.

Dear George,

Thank you for the thread.

I find the greatest impediment to me respecting the right of the religious to proselytise is the notion they hold that sinning against the will of God is immoral behaviour. It is not.

Abraham would have committed a sin by refusing to kill his son as instructed by his God. Yet had he carried out the deed he would stand condemned by natural human morality, even at the time.

Also we have arrived at a time in human history when the vast majority of the world's population regard slavery as an abomination. Yet Jesus called on the slave to respect his master and the Old Testament God instructed Moses to enslave entire peoples.

Human morality is a vibrant living thing that can be quite majestic. In many ways the religious form struggles to keep up. That is not to say the religious institutions and their followers can not be strong servants of human morality but just as often they impede and distort. Proclamations against condoms, mostly impacting third world countries, is a case in point.

It is not hard to recognise that the type of religiosity espoused by the likes of runner would be capable of great evil, all done in the name of his God.

I recall visiting some artefacts from the ruins of Pompei and being told that the small clay busts recovered from the site would have been those of the parents or grandparents of the head of the house. It was believed that they were imbued with the spirits of the departed and were usually mounted on high shelving around the living area so they were in a position to look down upon the living thus having the supposed effect of curbing behaviour that would have brought disapproval from those on whom they were modelled.

Cont..

pelican,

You are correct of course that many factors make-up the reasons why such a ghastly law as the ‘Kill Gays Bill’ as it is known, would even be considered. It was initiated by David Bahati who is a fully-fledged member of The Family. (Google it) The right-wing religious connections are well established.

Uganda, very similar to other African nations has been swamped with Christian missionaries. The majority religious make-up is 85% of the population Christian (45% of that Catholic) and about 12% Muslims. Traditional religion is also in the mix.

Now, that is about as religious as a country can get. One would think that a bill of this kind, because religion is so opposed to killing, as you point out, that it wouldn't even be considered to be introduced. One would think that the religious public would revolt en masse but they haven’t.

The speaker of the Uganda parliament, Rebecca Kadaga who has lobbied for the ‘Kill Gays Bill’ as a Christmas present for the Ugandan people, which demonstrates she is backing the popular vote, has since been ‘blessed’ by the Pope. During that occasion there was no mention of the Bill. This is not to say the Pope condones the bill but it shows religion is in there boots and all with its anti-homosexual propaganda. Rebecca Kadaga didn't need a ‘blessing’; she needed a good talking to about human rights. A few days before Benedict said he is opposed to unjust discrimination against gay men and lesbians.

Is that the strongest words he could come up with? Such a weak response really is beyond the pale. Placating Catholic numbers in developing nations comes at a heavy price.

But the reality of the situation is that the uneducated population of Uganda are being taken for a ride by religion and there is no excuse known that makes that right.

I respect that others do not see things of this nature as do I but I remain committed to point out the foibles of religion when needed. I have been shown no ethically justifiable reason why I shouldn't.

David

Cont..

I initially felt the words 'watched over by my father on high' took on a whole new meaning, yet it wasn't really all that different in either context. One could easily imagine both beliefs/acceptances and the threat of censure could have easily lead to “a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth”.

Naturally as a non-believer I find it difficult to respect this mode of thinking.

Yesterday I was walking through a barely accessible part of the Otway Ranges. Late afternoon we came to a rather pleasant even beautiful clearing surrounded by large ferns and tall timber. It was moist and lush, and from the evidence a grazing place of a mob of local wallabies. The mood quickly changed when one of our companions observed numerous leeches crawling up her boots. Pretty soon all four of us were dancing around clearing them from our clothing. We quickly high-tailed it out of there.

Would the experience have been more pleasant without the leeches? Of course! As it would have been without the march-flies and mosquitoes we encountered earlier, or the stinging vines, or the prickly wattles, or the odd spider down the neck, or having to watch every step for tiger snakes. Yet if each person who visited the area was able to wave a magical wand and get rid of a species that gave them concern or discomfort what would be left? It is the diversity that makes places like that special and so it is with the human race.

It seems a little inadequate to say I respect the views of the religious because 'they make the world an interesting place'. To be more precise what I do respect, enjoy, revel in, thrive on and receive inspiration from is the capacity of the human race to exhibit such a great and wondrous diversity of beliefs.

I think we value/respect this aspect far too little.

George

'Let me repeat (also for runner and others), the questions this post was based on was not about belief or unbelief in God but about respecting other people’s convictions about what is a better incentive for moral actions. '

I don't believe a person who condones killing the unborn has convictions. They may be acting with a seared conscience like suicide bombers with fervour for their dogmas but not conviction.

Dear Jay of Melbourne,

Western civilisation is a late comer to the civilised world. As far as we know the earliest civilisation was in what is now called Iraq. Other early civilisations were in Egypt, China and the Indus valley in what is now called Pakistan. John Keane in "The Life and Death of Democracy" places the beginnings of democracy in Asia where there is an ancient tradition of settling matters by bringing them up in discussion in assemblies generally open to the adult male population of the area. Greek democracy came later.

John Hobson in "The Eastern Origins of Western Civilisation" regards western civilisation as an offshoot of developments in Africa and Asia. For example the Chinese had the seed drill 2,200 years before it got to Sicily, printing with movable type in Korea 400 years before Gutenberg, blast furnaces in China 1,700 years before they were in Europe etc.

Before the nineteenth century Europe acknowledged that debt. However, in the nineteenth century Weber, a capitalist historian, and Marx, an anti-capitalist historian, denied the debt to Asia and Africa and saw the east as characterised by 'oriental despotism.' I definitely was not restricting my comment on civilisation to western civilisation.

I believe Gandhi thought western civilisation was a good idea which he recommended trying.

Dear csteele,

You wrote: "Yet Jesus called on the slave to respect his master and the Old Testament God instructed Moses to enslave entire peoples."

The above is true. The Bible nowhere in either testament condemns slavery.

A few years ago I visited Delphi in Greece which was a shrine several hundred years before the invention of Christianity. There were many inscriptions placed there by people who wanted to be remembered for their good deeds. Many of the inscriptions were by those ancient Greeks who wanted to be remembered for freeing their slaves. Although slavery was a recognised institution in classical Greece there were apparently many who thought it a bad thing. Those Greeks were better examplars of human rights than either Moses or Jesus.

David F,
Thanks for detailing your personally constructed version of history, like it or hate it there's only one authentic civilisation in existence at present so we need to fix our gaze firmly on the present, you didn't answer my question on tolerance.
Claiming to respect another's right to hold views which you yourself find unpalatable yet reserving the right to critique those opinions forces the critic into generalisations and abstraction which are as corrosive to the concept of liberty as any direct confrontation.
Nobody takes Voltaire literally,the Jacobins certainly didn't, tolerance is for chumps, if you want to be tolerant become a Mennonite or a Jain.

Dear David f,

I can respect convictions that go counter to mine, of course not all. So here we differ, although this might be caused by the many connotations the word “respect” has (one of them is ‘admire’, which I certainly did not have in mind). Also, when you say “I do not expect you to respect all of my ideas, and I will not respect all of your ideas” I can only reciprocate to a point: I respect not only you as a person, but also your opinions, (or convictions) insofar as I find them insightful, which does not imply I have to share them. To respect somebody’s opinion or belief does not imply you can identify with it. Well, I think I am repeating myself.

However, all that was not the point here. The question was, whether one can respect (or require others to respect) BOTH alternatives of this particular conviction, about lending “a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth.” I take it that your answer is NO. Both as an individual and society (which, in my opinion, could then hardly be called open).

As far as the question of whether belief in God and afterlife had a more positive or more negative moral impact on human actions throughout history, there are many facts that point one way and many which point the other way. Neither that was the original question. It is a different Pandora’s box that I certainly did not want to reopen here. (Though others perhaps do, and I will try to follow the arguments from both sides as I usually do.)

Dear George,

You wrote: "I take it that your answer isle NO. Both as an individual and society (which, in my opinion, could then hardly be called open)."

I wrote only as an individual. I cannot speak and do not wish to speak for society. Society is not an individual. As long as there are some ideas that are considered unacceptable society is not completely open. However, if all ideas are considered acceptable the idea is acceptable that dissenters can be silenced. With that idea we cannot have an open society. We can maximise the degree of openness by exhibiting tolerance toward all ideas with the hope that the those with unacceptable ideas will not be too numerous. There is the risk that those with ideas opposed to an open society will seize control. There is the certainty that banning those with certain ideas will cause us to lose the openness we have. We cannot have a completely open society. We can only try to maximise the degree of openness. All ideas must be allowed expression. However, all acts proceeding from those ideas are not acceptable. What acts are considered acceptable varies with the society.

We are awash on a sea of uncertainty.

Jay,

David has consistently shown his diabolical hatred for Christianity. Talk about biting the hand that feeds him for he having grown up in a majority Christian country and then migrates to another of the same.

I think his preferred religion is Hinduism as I'm pretty sure he once stated. India, a country which has institutionalised discrimination and about 5 different caste systems which includes the Untouchables. Not that I dislike Hinduism. I've travelled there. There are good and bad elements.

I think David is one mixed up man. He has a fundamentalist way of thinking, ie. taking everything literally as he continually quotes from the Old Testament for eg., not the New Testament.

Dear Constance,

I don't care for Hinduism, the belief in the ancient Greek gods or any kind of supernatural mumbojumbo. Belief in the ancient Greek gods was once fashionable. Now it is no longer fashionable, and other forms of nonsense are fashionable. God, the soul, Nirvana, transmigration, sin and its transferability etc. are all human inventions. Sometimes the inventions take virulent form as Christianity did with the Inquisition, wars of religion and other viciousness, Islam did with 9/11, the suicide bombings and other viciousness, Judaism does with the idea that God is a real estate dealer giving out land, Buddhism does with its oppression of the Tamils in Sri Lanka etc. The reason the majority Christian states in Australia and the USA are not bad places to live is that the separation of religion and state has curbed Christian oppression. However, whatever brand of supernatural mumbojumbo one subscribes to it is all nonsense.

davidf writes

'The reason the majority Christian states in Australia and the USA are not bad places to live is that the separation of religion and state has curbed Christian oppression. However, whatever brand of supernatural mumbojumbo one subscribes to it is all nonsense. '

and the reason people are lining up to immigrate to secular states like China, North Korea and Russia is because all 3 foolishly tried to elimate and deny their Creator. I sure the god deniers are proud of their achievements. Thankfully wherever the foolish god deniers have tried to wipe out God's children the church ends up thriving.

Dear runner,

Neither China nor North Korea is a secular state. A secular state regards the religion of its citizens as none of its business. It neither promotes nor interferes with the exercise of religion.

Both North Korea and China control and/or suppress religion. Secular states have freedom of religion. This has been explained to you before, but you apparently don't understand what a secular state is.

Under communism Russia tried to suppress religion. Now Russia is no longer communist there is freedom for the indigenous religions but restrictions on missionary activities of outside religions.

I repeat. Neither China nor North Korea is a secular state.

davidf

'A secular state regards the religion of its citizens as none of its business. It neither promotes nor interferes with the exercise of religion. '

thats exactly what the fundie secularist are trying to do in Australia. They want to tell private schools who they can and can't employ. They also want to force doctors and nurses with a godly conviction to be forced to kill the unborn.

Secularism or ungodliness has been a miserable failure. Its dogmas have produce much much rotten fruit.

runner,

Why do you show so such a lack of knowledge. Does your religion forbid you to seek information? Read this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secularism

David

Dear runner,

You are still confused. Religion is simply no business of a secular state. Many religious people can and do support separation of religion and state. Barry W. Lynn is an example. He has been the Executive Director of Americans United for Separation of Church and State since 1992.He is an ordained minister in the United Church of Christ.

It might be good if you could understand what secularism is.

S. 116 is a section of the Australian Constitution.

The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth.

The above describes a secular state neither imposing nor prohibiting the free exercise of any religion. At present there is a lawsuit which maintains Australia is in violation of its constitution in having chaplains in the public schools. Since their qualifications are religious hiring them as employees of the state is a religious test for office.

Australia's constitution is that of a secular state. Since both China and North Korea interfere with the free exercise of religion they are not secular states.

Dear David F.,

<<You are still confused. Religion is simply no business of a secular state. Many religious people can and do support separation of religion and state.>>

Yes, myself included. This is the theory, but in practice the state can trample on religious practices on other pretexts or by sheer insensitivity.

Recently for example, Germany made it illegal to circumcise boys (that was subsequently reversed), which seriously infringed the ability of Jews to practice their religion (less so Muslims because they don't have to circumcise on a fixed date).

It is illegal in Switzerland to have Kosher or Halal meat (but I suppose this doesn't break the Jewish/Muslim religious law, one can simply be vegetarian!).

Carrying the Sikh Kirpan (dagger) is heavily restricted, also in Australia, despite it being a religious injunction to carry it at all times.

Or a court may order a Jew to witness on the Sabbath or a Jewish holiday when Jews are not allowed to travel.

Or demand a testimony from a monk who committed the vow of silence.

Or the government may support, with tax-payer money, the cattle industry, thus making a Hindu an accomplice in killing cows.

Or... the government may provide free abortions from tax-payer money, thus making Runner an accomplice in killing foetuses.

In true separation, Runner cannot tell the state to outlaw abortion - but the state cannot order Runner either to pay for it.

Religious people will always place the service of God before the state, even if it means that they be arrested, tortured or executed.

For separation of religion and state to even be possible, the state must step out of most areas of life - either that, or allow small groups of people to form their own little independent states or autonomous regions where they are free to practice their religion. Otherwise, the Australian constitution is being violated left, right and centre, not just by the school-chaplain issue.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You are right. runner’s taxes pay for abortions which against his principles. I feel a woman has a right to a safe abortion if she wishes to terminate a pregnancy. If I were in a country that banned abortion and I felt strongly that the ban was wrong I would have the choices of campaigning against the ban, withholding my taxes, leaving the country and/or accepting the ban. runner has the same choices where abortion is legal. He has chosen to remain in Australia and complain. Those are his rights.

Some of the campaigners against abortion in the US motivated by religious concerns have murdered doctors who conducted abortions and blown up abortion clinics. That is not their right.

Australia in some areas tries to be concerned with religious rights. Although elections are scheduled on Saturday an observant Jew can vote by absentee ballot before the election. He or she can also be excused from witnessing on the Sabbath. However, a Jew may not prevent other people from violation of his or her Sabbath. That situation is the same with Hindus. They may avoid eating meat and cannot be obligated to eat meat. However, they cannot prevent others from killing cows or eating meat.

I do not approve of all the uses that my taxes are applied to. I do not approve of the support of the National School Chaplaincy Program (NSCP) or subsidies going to support private schools. I also think that religious groups should not have many of the tax exemptions that they currently have. However, I will continue to observe the law, pay my taxes and support campaigns to change the law. http://highcourtchallenge.com/ tells about Ron Williams’ legal challenge to the NSCP which I support.

However, I do not see why people who believe they have a religious right to challenge or disobey the law have any more right to do so than people who challenge or disobey the law for other reasons.

I agree that the state can trample on religious practices on other pretexts or through sheer insensitivity and oppose that.

Of course, david f, since taxation expenditure is orders of magnitude more than any taxation paid by runner, the simplest position for him to take is to decide that 'his' money has been expended on services or for purposes of which he approves and has not been spent on those he doesn't.

It is going down the path of special pleading to bring to the fore religious concerns in a constitutionally supported secular democracy.

Democracy alone has many people paying taxes for programs which they would rather not.

Here is a small list but not all of the activities in no particular order of importance which some taxpayers might be unhappy about supporting but which governments already financially back to some extent.

Top of the line car racing, professional sport, parts of government bodies improving meat and fish production, indoctrinating children, government hospitals providing abortions and circumcisions, welfare, letting in refugees, taxation breaks & perks for religion, renewable energy, non-renewable energy etc.

Collective living has people’s preferences cover a wide cross-section of likes and dislikes. Everyone has the right to lobby against tax money going to that which they disapprove. The trouble is that without an official separation of church and state, it can and does create a situation where there is not a level playing field.

At the moment, Christianity has more than a leg up in this regard. Anyone who would like that explained, possibly shouldn't be in this discussion. It could be Christianity today, Islam tomorrow or Callithumpian later on. That is one concern but not the greatest at this point in time.

It matters not if Christianity is the dominant religion or that multiple religions make up a majority of the population, which they do not, and again that is another discussion, but a self-proclaimed majority or minority forcing its will on a substantial minority or majority to gain extensive privilege has no basis in ethics.

Using unsupported by evidence supernatural claims for licence to override democracy as is happening should be seen by all as not acceptable. We are living in a soft-theocracy at the cost of non-equality for all.

Churchill’s dictum that democracy is the worst of systems but better than the rest could be refined to that an official secular democracy where there is a Jefferson wall of separation between Church and State would qualify for a political system less-worse than the existing democracy.

David

Hi pelican,

You touch upon two important questions.

>>I used the phrase 'a particular belief system' meaning religious proselytizing as related to the example of religion being taught in schools. <<

There are two ways of one particular religious outlook, e.g. Catholic, being present in a school: as a general orientation of the school or as a separate subject (that can coexist with other subjects teaching other religions or “non-religious philosophies” as alternative choices. Obviously, as a general orientation the Catholic outlook belongs only to Catholic schools.

The problem is in what sense can religion - in general, or a particular version of it - be taught in public schools or, more precisely, how can public schols be fair towards all sorts of religions or belief systems. [As you rightly say, there are atheist world-views or belief systems (they have something in common but are not all identical), the same as there are e.g. Christian belief systems (again plural). Some pairs clash more, some less. So I prefer to speak about belief systems or world-views instead of religions to cover also those “philosophical” orientations that do not like to be called religious.]

I don’t have a clear answer. There are, among others, also technical problems associated with teaching a variety of alternative subjects (supply and demand) as is the case also with e.g. foreign languages. As to the general world-view orientation of a public school, how do you deal with concepts like God, worship etc? No problem with subjects like maths or physics, (even evolution can be taught by saying that some people think this is the technology of how God created us, while others think that there is no need to assume a creator, because the process is self-explanatory), etc. It is harder when teaching history, where facts often demand evaluation or interpretation, which usually depends on the school’s or personal teacher’s background belief system. (ctd)

(ctd)
As said, I do not have a clear answer as to how fairness towards all respectable (I am not going to define this) world-views or belief systems should be dealt with in an open society school. This would also depend on the age of the students involved.

The second question relates to the concept of a ‘Christian who doesn't believe in God' raised recently also in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14560. I should have a closer look at the book reviewed therein. Perhaps this term is not unlike the term ‘cultural Christian’ that also Richard Dawkins seems to subscribe to. J.F. Kennedy’ 1963 proclamation “Ich bin ein Berliner” (Berliner who does not speak German) as an expression of solidarity, could be of a similar kind.

It is an interesting concept, certainly a step towards a better mutual understanding and, yes, respect, between Christians and those who do not believe in God. So I shall not be critical of it, only point to the first or second pig in my epilogue to the story about the three pigs (see http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2909&page=0#66836).

runner,

Conviction in my dictionary means “firmly held belief or opinion”. A woman who does what you call “killing the unborn”, and she “making use of her reproductive right”, certainly has a conviction in the sense of a firmly held belief (otherwise she would not claim it to be her right) even though you and I are convinced of the opposite. However, let me repeat again, my original question in this thread was not about this particular pair of convictions.

Dear csteele,

Thanks for giving your reasons for answering NO - as I understand it - to my first question: “Do our atheist friends here agree that not only those of the 'secular community' but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize? “

It would take many more than 350 words if I were to react to everything you wrote. Nevertheless let me try to be brief:

The story about Abraham obviously needs interpretation comprehensible only from within the Christian or Jewish religions like the statement that something can be both a particle and a wave is comprehensible only from within physics and the mathematics it builds on. Also, Jesus did not teach against slavery, feudalism, capitalism, socialism etc: His teaching was about LOVE and the criticism of these systems was left for others when interpreting the “love thy neighbour” principle in particular historical and political situations they lived in and/or were able to analyse. “Proclamations against condoms” whatever you mean by that, apparently hints at a rigid and absurd application of an unfortunate encyclical of the Catholic Church. I cannot see anybody who could successfully proselytize - i.e. convert others to Christianity - on the basis of this narrow interpretation of the anti-promiscuity stance of the Church.

You seem to compare the presence of Christianity, proselytized or not, to that of leeches. You obviously had some bad experience. Imagine the reaction here if I did the same with atheism in its generality, based on my personal experience with “proselytized atheism” (well, our Stalinist teachers called it “scientific atheism”).

So I presume your reply to my second question is also NO.

Dear David f,

Of course, I agree with what you wrote about society and its openness. Note again that my mentioning of open society was solely in reference to the two alternative views about the role of belief or unbelief in God and afterlife in history. The same about proselytizing. Nobody would suggest that ALL, e.g. racist, views should be allowed to proselytize.

Your response to Constance illustrates why you cannot respect world-views that clash with yours. I have known people who called higher mathematics (e.g. cohomology theory) mumbojumbo (or something similar), but most of those who do not understand what features of reality that kind of mathematics tries to represent, simply accept that perhaps others do.

Let me try it this way: As I hinted at in my recent article (http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464) in relation to the three worlds of Roger Penrose (to which a tentatively added the fourth, spiritual, one): Most everybody believes that the physical world is irreducible to the other two (or three) worlds, many if not most mathematicians believe that the mathematical world is irreducible to both the mental and physical worlds, and some people also believe that the spiritual (transcendent, supernatural) world is irreducible to the mental, physical and obviously also mathematical worlds. Note that “irreducible” here is not the same as “unrelated”.

This approach bypasses “reality” and “exists”, words for which there is not a generally accepted understanding of (in philosophy). This is certainly not an argument for converting from one belief system to another, only PERHAPS for being respectful of the alternative.

Actually, David,

I have a friend who thinks Zeus is really cool. He is one who does not follow trends.

The Spanish inquisition was not a Vatican initiative, it was instigated by the royals, Ferdinand and Isabella - in fact the Catholic church was very critical of what was happening. They had no sovereignty over a whole country, did they? It only occurred in Spain after all.

The Tamils are plain trouble makers every since they were late arrivals to Sri Lanka. And they've been seeking their own bloody autonomous state ever since. Who do they think they are? And what right do have in doing this?

“Do our atheist friends here agree that not only those of the 'secular community' but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?“

Yes, I agree. Though all parties should also not be surprised at seeming to be mocked religiously – when they are.

Unlike a discussion about mathematics – which for the most part, I'll never understand adequately – discussions about religion seem to become complicated by the definition of abstract nouns...

To assist me with understanding what someone might be proselytising, here is one checklist for God's attributes:

Aseity, eternality, graciousness, holiness, immanence, immutability, impassibility, impeccability, incorporeality, love, mission, omnibenevolence, omnipotence, omnipresence, omniscience, oneness, providence, righteousness, simplicity, transcendence, trinitarian, veracity, wrathfulness.

For the record, here is mine:

Imaginary.

But if it (or God) is all about Causal Determinism – then I had no choice but to say that.

Davidf,

And why do you think Christianity allows a separation of religion and state? Because it is all about freedom and living in a liberal state. Catholic does mean liberal after all. It's all about balance.

"...why do you think Christianity allows a separation of religion and state?"

I wasn't aware that it did. the price of freedom/secularism has been eternal viligilance. If vigilance wavers, religion encroaches.

Atheists are front line invigilators in opposing religious encroachment.

George,

“…there are atheist world-views or belief systems (they have something in common but are not all identical), the same as there are e.g. Christian belief systems…”

No, George. Atheism doesn't have common world-views and it definitely doesn't have belief systems. Atheists can only encompass atheism as a part of a world-view. How can there even be beliefs in waiting for the evidence to be supplied for the existence of a god or gods. Because, that is what atheism is.

You have used these two terms as support for each other. Can you elaborate and as well, explain why you did that? The below definitions from Wiki might help you.

A world view is (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_view)

"A comprehensive world view (or worldview) is the fundamental cognitive orientation of an individual or society encompassing the entirety of the individual or society's knowledge and point-of-view, including natural philosophy; fundamental, existential, and normative postulates; or themes, values, emotions, and ethics.”

A belief system is (From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_system)

“A belief system is a set of mutually supportive beliefs. The beliefs of any such system can be classified as religious, philosophical, ideological or a combination of these. Philosopher Jonathan Glover says that beliefs are always a part of a belief system, and that belief systems are difficult to completely revise)”

“(well, our Stalinist teachers called it “scientific atheism”)”

Whoever “our Stalinist teachers” might be they are unimportant in regard to atheism freely chosen in a democracy. Why would you make such a 'Stalinist' reference when it is totally out of context for contemporary atheism? Can you elaborate thanks?

David

WmTrevor,
>>also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?“
Yes, I agree. Though all parties should also not be surprised at seeming to be mocked <<

I appreciate your mentioning “all parties”, apparently including those of an atheist persuasion, although one usually mocks a world-view subscribed to by a considerable number (not necessarily a majority) of contemporary scientists and other scholars if one does not understand what it is about, and is not wise enough to admit it.

True, human beings may abound
Who growl at things beyond their ken,
Mocking the beautiful and good,
And all they haven't understood
(Johan Wolfgang Goethe, Faust)

WmTrevor,
>>also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?“
Yes, I agree. Though all parties should also not be surprised at seeming to be mocked <<

I appreciate your mentioning “all parties”, apparently including those of an atheist persuasion, although one usually mocks a world-view subscribed to by a considerable number (not necessarily a majority) of contemporary scientists and other scholars if one does not understand what it is about, and is not wise or honest enough to admit it.

True, human beings may abound
Who growl at things beyond their ken,
Mocking the beautiful and good,
And all they haven't understood
(Johan Wolfgang Goethe, Faust)

Enjoyed the Faust, George…

Thanks for noticing, 'all parties' does include "those of an atheist persuasion" – even including some of my closest friends who claim to be of the atheist persuasion even though they don't believe in the existence of the right god.

Dear George,

Thank you for your considered reply.

I'm sorry my post seemed light on definitives. I construct far too many on an iphone and as a consequence they often suffer from a lack of both clarity and revision. Anyway it was an earthy response, probably not quite in the vein of the high thought going into some of the very good posts being contributed here.

So the fault of you so totally misinterpreting my point lies entirely with me, well perhaps a little defensiveness from yourself contributed a touch (“You seem to compare the presence of Christianity, proselytized or not, to that of leeches.”) but from your posts I see you are a thoughtful person taking the time to understand and reply to people's contributions so I am shouldering the blame on this one.

Therefore I will attempt to be as definitive as possible.

Do I “agree that not only those of the “secular community” but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?”. No. But do I want either side to stop? Not on your life!

I have stood up in church full of a couple of hundred fundamentalist Christians and challenged their stance on homosexuality. Was I more than a little toey? You betcha. Having spent a brief time in my teenage years as one of them I know the thrill of proselytizing to an unreceptive audience. It adds so much to the experience. Its kind of like the reason people pay to go on roller coasters. The buzz is a drug. If you need to know why creationism is so persistent just watch a lone 'Born Again' stick his hand up in a Biology class in a secular school and challenge the notion of evolution. Only the blind can not see how much of a life affirming experience that can be.

These are the juices of life and should be denied to none.

Cont..

Cont..

On a different thread I spoke of one of my favourite maxims from dear Ogden - “Life begins at the end of your comfort zone”. The leeches certainly put us hikers at the edge of our comfort zones but it made the day far more memorable than a hundred uneventful saunders at the local park. These were not Christians I was alluding to per say but ideas or notions that challenge, bring discomfort or even repel. Each of us have our lists but who wants to live in a world where all are excluded? It is like three people in a cell where one gets the others to agree not to discuss religion, another nominates talk of sex as forbidden, and the last politics.

So when you ask “Can we also “want our fellow citizens (including atheists) to respect our deeply held conviction that the belief in God (usually, but not always, accompanied by a belief in “afterlife”) lends a greater, not a lesser, moral importance to our actions on earth”? Again the answer is no but I love the fact you have it.

What I object to though is the notion that moral truths derived from the scriptures are only available to those who believe. So when you write; “The story about Abraham obviously needs interpretation comprehensible only from within the Christian or Jewish religions like the statement that something can be both a particle and a wave is comprehensible only from within physics and the mathematics it builds on” I respectfully submit you display a form of religious chauvanism that really challenges any call for respect.

This is a post I wrote to davidf quite a few years ago about an interpretation of the story of Abraham.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2994#70786

While the post its self is not of any great import the notion that you would seek to firewall such an important part of the Western canon from moral discussion and reflection by us secularists is unwelcome.

Anyway you might find this Huffington Post piece relevant to your thread.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jaweed-kaleem/louie-giglio-replacement-evangelicals-inauguration-benediction_b_2451435.html

Dear Constance,

Christianity is not about freedom. Separation of church and state was forced upon Christianity. Several incidents brought this about. One was the burning at the stake of Servetus in Calvin's Protestant Geneva. Almost unanimously Catholic and Protestant clerics approved of the act. Castellio was one exception. He disagreed with Servetus but thought heretics ahould have a right to express their heresy without penalty. Most clerics of the time regarded tolerance for opinions differing from theirs as a sign of poor faith. However, the idea that tolerance was a good thing gradually took hold.

The Constitution of the United States was written by men influenced by the Enlightenment. In general they did not consider themselves Christians but Deists. Deists believed in God but denied supernatural revelation and took no share in formal religious practices. They believed that God created the universe but had no further contact with the world. Deists James Madison and Thomas Jefferson were for the separation and were instrumental in seeing it written into US law. http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725&page=0 and http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10790&page=0 are two articles on the subject I have written for olo.

Dear David F.,

<<However, I do not see why people who believe they have a religious right to challenge or disobey the law have any more right to do so than people who challenge or disobey the law for other reasons.>>

What's a 'right' anyway? By definition, the state doesn't grant anyone rights to disobey its laws, yet many of us believe, for a variety of reasons, that at least under some circumstances one's moral duty is to disobey the state-law.

Religious people do not believe that they have a RIGHT to challenge or disobey conflicting laws - but rather that it is their DUTY to do so, even unto death.

Unlike those who break laws for personal gain, pleasure or comfort, those who break the law on a matter of principle are not criminals, but enemies of the state.

The Australian constitution included section 116 so to avoid turning a large segment of the population into enemies of the state (in contemporary terminology, 'terrorists'), it's like a peace pact between state and religion, to be respected as such. Unfortunately, both parties occasionally break their side-of-the-deal.

I will be extremely happy to see Section 116 extended to all matters of principle, beyond its current interpretation of 'religion' (and what do politicians and judges know about religion anyway?).

If one has principles that are in conflict with the state's, such that one is willing to die for them if necessary, then the question of their legality vs. criminality should not arise, then there are only two possibilities: either the principled behaviour injure or compromise the safety of other citizens who are not party to those principles, or it doesn't. In the first case, the state may hunt the principled people and shoot them down as enemies; in the second, the state should not interfere.

One need not make claims of any nature, supernatural or otherwise, in order to be 'allowed' to live by one's convictions: suffice that one considers their behaviour as a matter of sacred duty and are willing to die rather than break their vows and code.

Dear Yuyutsu,

I agree with you. If one feels the state is wrong and it is not a trivial wrong one must be an enemy of the state. Whether the enemy of the state is guided by religion or not is irrelevant.

Henry Thoreau, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, Mahatma Gandhi and Franz Jaegerstatter were all enemies of the state. Bonhoeffer and Franz Jaegerstatter were executed.

David (of AFoA),
>>Atheism doesn't have common world-views and it definitely doesn't have belief systems<<
If you check my first post to pelican, I wrote explicitly that “you use the term ‘belief system’, that is OK with me, however some atheists seem to claim they do not have a belief system”. I then used it myself after pelican assured me that “it would be hard to argue atheists don't have a belief system”. After all, the post was addressed to her.

Even then, I was speaking of atheist world-views or belief systems (in plural), not THE atheist belief system. For instance Marx-Leninism with its Dialectical Materialism, that I grew up with, is AN atheist world view, or belief system, NOT the only one and certainly not a world view most contemporary Western atheists would subscribe to.

There might be subtle differences between belief systems and world-views (the former being sort of the rational backbone of the latter, however to avoid such subtleties I just listed them together.

>>Atheists can only encompass atheism as a part of a world-view. <<
Well that is one way of describing one particular world-view as atheist, again not claiming that there is just one such world-view. Also e.g. Christianity can be encompassed as a part of a wider world-view or general belief system. Of course, all Christian belief systems have something in common, the same as all atheist belief systems have something in common (namely “absence of belief in a divinity or what you like to call it).

>>Why would you make such a 'Stalinist' reference when it is totally out of context for contemporary atheism? <<
I was just referring to my personal experience with one version of atheism, since I assumed that csteele’s comparing Christianity to leeches (as I then understood it) was also caused by some bad experience with one version of Christianity from his/her personal life. Of course, there is a contemporary atheism different from e.g. its Stalinist form, the same as there are forms of Christianity different from and critical of its intellectually and morally less acceptable versions.

Dear csteele,

Thanks for continuing to describe your motivations. I take it that your answer to both of my questions was NO, although the first one asked whether people of religious persuasion should be afraid to proselytize and not whether you wanted them to stop, and the second asked whether you respected their conviction and not whether you loved them for it.

This is all I was interested in: whether, in a secular society that everybody is aiming at, basic Christian convictions (my questions contained no reference to Abraham or homosexuality) could coexists as respectable alternatives to secular humanist convictions, or whether Christianity will eventually be forced to go underground as it almost happened in Communist countries. [Of course, there are convictions on both sides that are not acceptable to the other side - some even to all decent people - as a respectable alternative.]

>> I respectfully submit you display a form of religious chauvanism that really challenges any call for respect.<<
Well, if you call chauvinism my conviction that to understand what the bible is saying to contemporary Christians you have to know something about biblical exegesis, or that to really understand what quantum physics is all about you have to know some mathematics, then be it, call me chauvinist. This in spite of the fact that I myself am - or rather used to know - a mathematician but am absolute ignorant as far as scholarly exegesis is concerned. So I cannot offer any informed opinion on your interpretation, except that it is one of many.

Nevertheless, I agree that the story about Abraham going to sacrifice his son should not have been taught to children (and others?), who cannot understand the bible stories except in their literal form. (ctd)

(ctd)
Perhaps I should mention that I had no formal RE at school, so my approach to religion was more through science and philosophy than through the bible, esoecially the Old Testament. Therefore I find more “stimulus” (albeit negative) for my faith from reading or listening to e.g. Dawkins than from reading the bible. I know with many atheists it is the other way around.

George,

But you were not convinced atheists had a ‘belief’ system in that post. You said to pelican, “(you use the term “belief system”, that is OK with me,” That indicates it is OK with you but it is not your opinion. So I ask again, why did you use the term as though you agree with it? That doesn't make any kind of rational sense.

Marx-Leninism is a communist ideology; resulting in a tyranny by Stalin who forced atheism onto the population. He could just as easily have installed the Force from Star-Wars. This says nothing about atheism or the Force.

Yes, there can be subtle differences between ‘belief systems’ and ‘world views’. The belief systems and world view of religions are nearly one and the same and with Islam for example they are inseparable. I say again, atheism doesn't have a belief system and atheism is incorporated into the world view of the atheists.

Without the weight of religious tenets/mores/traditions distorting rational thought, atheist can make decisions, not because of atheism but because such decisions are rationally justified. Atheism itself has little to do with it. If religion didn't exist, there would be no atheism and the same decisions resulting from logical conclusion would be the norm. It doesn't require someone to be an atheist to make coherent choices.

Using personal experience that others might not know of is not good enough when it creates a false picture of a group of people not deserving of such appalling underhanded criticism.

Why use such unedifying ambiguity when it is common knowledge there is already confusion existing in the public mind regarding atheism which is plainly exemplified on this and other forums. Was it, as I have pointed out, just sloppy wording or was there intent to deceive? As with everyone else, I’m only reading words that are less than helpful in discussions about atheism and therefore the question as to why those words and concepts were chosen is a very valid one. You have not answered that adequately.

(Continued next post)

(Continued from last post)

Are you following the not unusual practice amongst religious writers, but not all, in making a case against atheism no matter how much a negligibly tenuous connection there exists with the idea behind such wording but it is still exaggerated in the pejorative sense to falsely show atheism in a bad light? It is very difficult to escape the conclusion that this kind of disingenuous communication is actually, ‘lying for Jesus’. I’ll assume your wording was just sloppy thinking and writing.

And if you think I am being too harsh, then what messages do you think the reader absorbed by your post on these matters? Were there negative or positive ideas about atheism taken on board?

I really am looking forward to your reply.

David

Dear George,

You wrote;

“Thanks for continuing to describe your motivations. I take it that your answer to both of my questions was NO, although the first one asked whether people of religious persuasion should be afraid to proselytize and not whether you wanted them to stop, and the second asked whether you respected their conviction and not whether you loved them for it.”

Actually your first question asked if I 'agree that not only those of the “secular community” but also of other, religious, persuasions should NOT be fearful of seeming to proselytize.' Quite different, and may I say what a very 'capital C' Christian response. 'Do you believe in Jesus as your Lord and Savour? Yes or No answers please, we will have none of your nuances or caveats here lad. Black and white is all we require.'

I submit the time when the Christian Church was underground it was at its most alive and vibrant yet the period when the authority of the Church was absolute saw it at its most stulifying. If you go into most churches in Australia it is the stories of persecutions of Christians in other countries with tales of those who refuse to renounce their faith in the face of intimidation that garner the most empathy and emotion.

The amazing rise of the 'house churches' in present day China is an example. Their clandestine nature surely adds to the allure. Indeed the whole story of the Passion is drenched in fear and the different responses to it from the players. Contrast Christ's actions, so deeply resolute in his faith (well until the end), with Peter's who thrice denied him.

The lad who sticks his hand up in the Biology class to challenge a teaching on evolution sees himself in Christ's image. Fear needing to be conquered is an essential part of package otherwise there is no connection worth speaking of. If you wish the best for your faith perhaps you might embrace it a little.

Cont..

Cont..

Yet a secular society allows for these views to have expression and it is hardly going to impose the restrictions of a communist society and expect to retain the label 'secular'.

I would agree that it is more difficult for a practising Christian to avail themselves of what I see as the vast treasures of the Old Testament than a non-practising one because a hell of a lot of stuff gets in the way, but that doesn't mean you should not try. I count Job as one of the great works of literature. Its evocative description of the developing relationship between a man and his God is top notch stuff. I have discussed it in the past.
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2912

So when you write;
“Well, if you call chauvinism my conviction that to understand what the bible is saying to contemporary Christians you have to know something about biblical exegesis, or that to really understand what quantum physics is all about you have to know some mathematics, then be it, call me chauvinist.”

Chauvinist! ;)

I too have no formal religious education but that doesn't preclude me diving in head first. The great thing about the scriptures is the fact they have been able to move, inspire, educate and deliver to generation after generation without the need for pontifications from biblical scholars, or perhaps even despite them. My take on Abraham may well be just one interpretation, but it is mine and therefore unique. I venture the same is true for Job.

There is a game I play with those who too readily dismiss the claim a God created universe. I ask if they totally reject the notion of any outside intervention having occurred. When they say yes I say the following;

“So you believe that if you leave hydrogen atoms alone long enough they will one day wonder where they came from!”

A brief pause then the admission comes that 'Yes I suppose I do'. Therein lies the miracle of creation, a wonder to behold, and you don't need to know much about “quantum physics” to appreciate it.

David (of AFoA),

>>But you were not convinced atheists had a ‘belief’ system<<

I am not sure what it means atheists “have” a belief system. Please read my post again. Maybe you have a problem with the term “belief” which you associate with religious faith only. In my dictionary, belief is “an acceptance that a statement is true or that something exists; something one accepts as true or real; a firmly held opinion or conviction”. This, of course, includes religious as well as other beliefs.

Every thinking being, including atheists, has a belief system - well, often just a collection of beliefs not organised in a system - which he/she bases his/her thinking on. It is concerned with the person’s basic existential outlook and forms the rational backbone of his/her world-view. Such a belief is for instance Bertrand Russels’ “I believe that when I die that I shall rot and nothing of my ego shall survive” in his “What I believe”.

>> Are you following the not unusual practice amongst religious writers, but not all, in making a case against atheism no matter how much a negligibly tenuous connection there exists with the idea behind such wording but it is still exaggerated in the pejorative sense to falsely show atheism in a bad light? <<

I am not aware of having made a case against atheism, or showing it in a bad light, certainly not on this thread, unless you consider intolerance towards other world-views part of atheism.

Dear csteele,

Sorry for the confusion due also to the clumsy formulation of the question. So I understand now that your answer to my first question was NO: you don’t agree that also those of religious persuasions, should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize, meaning you think they should be fearful. I admit, the question

Thanks for the rest of your post. So - if I didn’t misunderstand you again - you believe in a God-Creator, and accept the Scripture as a source of wisdom if properly interpreted. This we have in common and I think this is more important than the other things we might disagree on. As for those, I appreciate your sincerity, though I am not sure how, if at all, you expect me to respond.

Dear George,

I do not accept the existence of a god-creator, any other kind of god, soul or immortality.

However, I accept scripture as a source of wisdom. I also accept the sacred literature of other religious traditions as a source of wisdom. However, we must use it with care as mixed in with the wisdom is nonsense in my opinion.

"And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?" sounds like wisdom to me. However, the idea of a humanoid God taking on the sins of the world seems like nonsense.

Wisdom is found in many places. However, it may need guidance to recognise it.

Dear David f,

>> However, I accept scripture as a source of wisdom. I also accept the sacred literature of other religious traditions as a source of wisdom. ... Wisdom is found in many places. However, it may need guidance to recognise it.<<

On this we agree completely.

>> I do not accept the existence of a god-creator, any other kind of god, soul or immortality.<<

I have been aware of that and respect that view (you are not the only one to hold it).

>>the idea of a humanoid God taking on the sins of the world seems like nonsense.<<

As you may remember, this usually reminds me of the “old lady” saying: How can they teach such a nonsense as (a+b)^2=a^2+2ab+b^2 when everybody knows that you can add only numbers but not letters. You will not find Hilbert spaces in nature, however, as you know, quantum physics needs that concept to successfully describe (represent) certain aspects of physical reality. If the finger points to the moon that does not mean that the moon is finger-shaped.

These are rather crude metaphors since here - unlike in mythological or narrative models of spiritual reality - culture is not involved. Nevertheless, this is approximately how I understand “humanoid”, and other seemingly naive, models of spiritual reality. Of course, this is merely personal, not an argument

It has to be said that the segments of organised atheism which are most visible to the public have been (or are in the process of being) hijacked by adherents of the religion of Political Correctness, this is what is now termed "Atheistkult". Anyone who's really interested can go to Youtube and watch endless online debates on the issue but the widespread perception that organised atheism is now a religious faith comes from the fact that it's leading lights have sold out engage with and in many cases embrace so called "progressive" ideas while suppressing and persecuting reactionaries. As noted in a recent OLO article it's still possible to be a Christian and not believe in God, that mindset is just another form of extreme protestantism and it's just such people, along with straight Marxian cultists who are imposing themselves on the "suits and seminars" atheist movement.

Dear George,

I am trapped by language. Spiritual reality is to me a meaningless concept.

Dear David f,

>>I am trapped by language. Spiritual reality is to me a meaningless concept.<<

Sorry I should have said spiritual (transcendental, supernatural) WORLD, hinting at Penrose’s three worlds (see my article http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464), where the question of independent existence of these can be suspended. Spiritual matters are the subject of a huge variety of literature, Western or Oriental. One might believe - and many people, apparently including yourself, do so - that they are purely a product of imagination (spiritual world being reducible to the mental world in the language of my article) however, they should not be meaningless. A pseudo-riemannian space of signature, say (7,3) - unlike that of signature (3.1) - corresponds apparently to nothing in physical reality, but is not meaningless.

George,

Here are some examples of what you have said about ‘atheist belief-systems’.

“…As you rightly say, there are atheist world-views or belief systems…”

I guess I'm going to have to say this a few times but there is no atheist belief-system but atheists may have individual belief-systems but that has nothing to do with atheism. Communism is an example.

“Even then, I was speaking of atheist world-views or belief systems`…”

And again, read my answer above.

“…the same as all atheist belief systems have something in common…”

And again, read my answer above.

“…every thinking being, including atheists, has a belief system…”

Here you have backtracked from atheist belief-systems to individual atheists having a belief-system. You have gone away from the position that there is a belief-system associated with atheism to everyone has a belief-system. That is a mighty big difference.

We can conclude from this that what I was saying is correct. There is no common atheist belief-system. Systems needs much more than the single idea of no evidence for a god.

Bertrand Russell was using logic that death infers rotting and annihilation of ego the same as he would if religion did not exist. That is a far cry from a belief-system and a couple of universes away from a religious belief-system.

“I am not aware of having made a case against atheism, or showing it in a bad light, certainly not on this thread, (*Stalinist*) unless you consider intolerance towards other world-views part of atheism.”

Then your subconscious is controlling your mind more than it should. Religion can do that. It is Interesting that you do it again using the subtle language of the misguided. It is not atheism that is intolerant of religion. Atheism is rightly intolerant of the bad parts of religion.

Religious intolerance of others is real and not imaginary as atheism is portrayed by religions.

Religion is demonstrably intolerant of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools.

Now it’s your turn for an atheism intolerance list. Good luck.

David

David,
The second an atheist utters the word "rights" he's no longer an atheist, now are you saying that "Atheism with a capital A" isn't at all concerned with human "rights"

Dear David (of AFoA),

I concede. You want to talk about atheists having belief systems instead of atheist belief systems, because an atheist's belief system has nothing to do with atheism (like Russell's "What I believe" having nothing to do with him being an atheist). Like wanting to talk about cars being manufactured in Germany to avoid the abbreviation German cars. OK, I do not think this is worth further nit-picking. After all, it was because I knew that people like you object to the term that I avoided it in my first post to pelican.

You impute to me opinions that I never expressed or held. For the rest, I do not see any point in continuing at this level. I was not looking for a fight but if it makes you happy, feel good about having the last word.

George,

When quoting someone, it would be prudent to quote them in the order of what they have said so as to not run the risk of missing the point they were trying to make. You have quoted david f's first two paragraphs out-of-order thus relieving you of addressing the fact that he too - as an atheist - can appreciate the wisdom in holy scriptures, which in turn weakens any significance of the Bible to Christianity.

I find this dishonest.

As someone who is not a literalist, do you find the wisdom in the Bible is what gives it its value? If so, then what does one then make of the unwise and immoral parts of the Bible and how do they fit into the whole picture? But if not, then what else do you think the Bible means to Christianity? What is its significance?

<<...accept the Scripture as a source of wisdom if properly interpreted.>>

Could you explain how one determines whether or not their interpretation of scripture is "proper"? How does one know whether they should take a passage literally or metaphorically?

If it's the context that is important, than in what context does Abraham's willingness to sacrifice his son become right? And if one accepts csteele’s explanation, then in what context does God requesting that of Abraham, to test him, become right?

You claim that the interpretation of the story of Abraham only becomes comprehensible within the Jewish and Christian religions, but you have not mentioned what this interpretation is? Only that you agree with csteele that the story shouldn’t be taught to children when he/she never even said that.

So what is this interpretation and why is it comprehensible only within the Jewish and Christian religions?

I know how I (and most other Christians I knew) interpreted it when I believed, and it is not an interpretation that those outside Judaism and Christianity could not understand, so I am intrigued as to what your interpretation is.

Continued…

…Continued

<<This we have in common and I think this is more important than the other things we might disagree on.>>

Not necessarily; especially if what you're disagreeing on has to do with how one arrives at that conclusion to begin with.

Why we agree with someone is usually more important than whether or not we agree with them (take the statement, "The earth is warming", as an example). To express otherwise suggests that one is more concerned with a show of solitary than the truth and how it can/should be arrived at.

Your “crude” metaphors to david f, suggest that you believe there is a higher (or at least different) plane of consciousness or thought that you have tapped into that most of us ordinary people haven’t yet or are unable to; yet when us “old ladies” ask you, the mathematician, to explain this algebra to us, you refuse to.

Why is that?

You missed one, David.

>>Religion is demonstrably intolerant of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools.<<

You left out "other religions".

And this needs a form of underlining-plus-modification:

>>There is no common atheist belief-system<<

There is one belief that is common to all atheists, and that is "there is no God".

This is of course too simple a concept for the religious, who seize upon it with a great "hurrah", and deduce from it that there is, after all a "common-atheist-belief-system". From that flimsy non-premise they can build an entire non-belief structure that includes (usually) Pol Pot, Stalin, Hitler and all the rest.

There is unfortunately no logic that works against this, as you are perpetually faced with the challenge "prove a negative". Which as any logician, as well as many philosophers, will tell you is not possible.

A simple logical structure would look as follows:

George believes in Jesus
Jesus was a good person
George is therefore a good person.

David doesn't believe in Jesus
Pol Pot doesn't believe in Jesus
Pol Pot is evil
Therefore David is evil

Any fourth-former could drive massive holes through these two, but they contain the essence of religious belief, and there perpetual fight against i) atheism and ii) religious beliefs that do not coincide with their own (vide Belfast).

Substitute Mohammed, Buddha, L Ron Hubbard, Joseph Smith, Jim Jones etc. ad libitum and they still "work" in the same way.

George is of course right when he says:

>>every thinking being, including atheists, has a belief system<<

What confuses him is that while Christianity instructs a Christian's personal belief system, atheism (being a non-belief system) cannot, by definition, instruct any specific individual's personal belief system.

They make personal, ethical choices instead.

Dear David (of AFoA),

You wrote: "Religion is demonstrably intolerant of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools."

The statement above is incorrect. It would be correct if you had substituted 'Some adherents of religion are' for 'Religion is'

It is also correct that some adherents of religion are demonstrably tolerant or supportive of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools."

Religion is a complex phenomenon. Some religious adherents are supportive of separation of religion and state and other things you favour. There would be no argument in churches about accepting the full rights of gays if there were not some who accepted those rights.

Taking unfavourable characteristics that exist in a subset of a group and assigning those characteristics to the entire group is prejudice.

Dear George,

No I do not “believe in a God-Creator” and if I have imparted that impression then it seems we might be on different operating systems. If we are then you are obviously the Mac guy and I'm Windows. Yours is a far more stable platform where as mine is free wheeling, susceptible to viruses, and periodically crashes – but lots of fun.

I'm not trying to impart any deep wisdom here because I don't have any. Rather I'm explaining why I love my OS (please note I'm not asking you to respect it, I wouldn't want to be that presumptuous ;) ).

So when you write “accept the Scripture as a source of wisdom if properly interpreted” I say bugger the 'proper' interpretation. The only people who can tell us what that is are long dead. The interpretations you garner from the scriptures would be far different to those acquired by others a millennia ago or yesterday from some other denomination or even yourself ten years earlier.

Think of the scriptures as art. We should be free to take from it what we will and if it deeply affects us on a level that others don't understand then so be it. I have gathered far more 'wisdom' from directly reading biblical works than from reading any interpretations.

Dear AJ Phillips,

You wrote;

“Only that you agree with csteele that the story shouldn’t be taught to children when he/she never even said that.”

It was a bit of self projection on his behalf that I let slide.

I do not have a problem with children being exposed to biblical literature, rather what I object to is them being exposed to people who would claim to have definitive answers to the moral questions it poses. What I would find acceptable is an explanation prefaced with; 'This is what I think is the message of this story but as you grow up and learn more you will decide for yourself what you think it means and it may well be quite different to my ideas.'

Teaching the bible should be more about opening doors than describing the view. I have no problem with recommending Job over lets say Numbers as a good book to get your teeth into but once led there I shouldn't be telling anyone what message to take, only what I personally got from it.

Having said that I have reread the Job thread and I did happen to write; “Read chapter 24 where Job proceeds to make the case that God has failed to deliver justice as promised. I would ignore verses 18-20 as they are so discordant with the rest of Job’s accusations that I feel they can only be later additions.”

Guilty I'm afraid your honour.

As I am with my fondness of often indecipherable 'crude metaphors'. PC - Mac, my goodness me.

But I am interested to hear George's interpretation of the Abraham story.

George,

I was waiting with excited anticipation for the list of intolerances by atheism. But, it possibly is best we leave it here.

David

Pericles,

>>>”You left out "other religions".”<<<

Do you mean there is more than one?

David

david f,

Word limit is partly at fault although I used the word religion as meaning the idea of religion. I often state that the percentage of adherents in favour of socially progressive notions is not represented by the leadership of most religions.

There was no prejudice intended or indeed displayed by me. Religious leaders, via politicians encumbered by the faith-gene or who are subservient to those that are, keep anachronistic notions going and stop more enlightened legislation from happening.

And, by the way, if the adherents who are for progressive politics do not make a noise about it in trepidation of upsetting the hierarchy, then they are compliant in positive change not coming about.

Many are noisy, but not anywhere near enough of them. If there were enough change would not just be a hope.

David

Dear David,

I agree with David Hume that reason is a slave to the passions. We make emotional judgments as to what is right and wrong and then use reason to support those judgments.

I am writing a history of the separation of church and state. One of the heroes in the progress of that idea is Sebastian Castellio. He saw the burning of heretics in the French Inquisition, and it affected him deeply. When Servetus was burnt at the state in Calvin's Geneva he protested even though most of both Catholic and Protestant clergy agreed with the burning of a heretic. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sebastian_Castellio tells about him.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=10725 contains my article on the subject.

Another person I greatly admire was John Brown who fought slavery. It would be fair to characterise him as a religious nut, but he was right. The more rational individuals who opposed him as well as Robert E.Lee who presided at his execution were wrong.

There are many ugly aspects in religion, but it has also been a support for those who oppose oppression.

david f,

“There are many ugly aspects in religion, but it has also been a support for those who oppose oppression.”

That is a reasonable statement. However, you are speaking of times when nearly all people were religious or said they were out of fear of being ostracised depending what country was involved. There was no understanding of evolution and the theist and deist idea was was in the majority by far. Brave acts can be attributed to people and the actual religious motivation can only be guessed at though I'd assume it was certainly a part of the reasoning of many. Of course, religious reasons may encompass hope for eternal bliss or dread of hell. We just don't know these things and each will make their own evaluation suiting their particular slant.

Neither the AFA nor I am opposed to religion per se if chosen without childhood coercion, especially if extreme supernatural punishment and reward is not used. The trouble is that specific religions and sects within those religions claim they have the ‘truth’. Children soak up these messages by the adult authorities and they can become inherent in their nature. This is not only an unfair thing to do but it also can have negative ramifications for groups in society and civilisation as a whole.

To overcome this, the AFA and I propose that impartial comparative religion be taught to students in government schools and let the ensuing adult choose a religion or none. That atheists exist in large numbers shows that religion is not necessary for some humans. All people should have the chance of making a decision on this with the fullest amount of information available. This decision has serious implications for individuals and the planet.

The reason that religion is opposed to such a scheme is they know that early specific religious indoctrination works and can trap those so abused (a purposely chosen word) for life.

David

Dear David,

<<Religion is demonstrably intolerant of women, lesbians, gays, stem-cell research, voluntary-euthanasia, effective sex-education, abortion, single parents, atheists, non-indoctrination, non-taxation-pilfering, non-infiltration of chaplains in state schools.>>

This is defamatory, but others have already been quicker than me to point how logically unsound it is to attribute the attitudes of certain Christian sects to religion at large: how is this different than attributing the woes of Stalinism to atheists at large?

<<Of course, religious reasons may encompass hope for eternal bliss or dread of hell.>>

No, such reasons would be mundane and selfish, not religious.

<<That atheists exist in large numbers shows that religion is not necessary for some humans.>>

No, it only shows that formal religion along with belief in gods is not necessary. Without religion there would be no point in life, but one doesn't need to believe anything in order to be religious.

<<The reason that religion is opposed to such a scheme is they know that early specific religious indoctrination works and can trap those so abused (a purposely chosen word) for life.>>

Ditto the misleading indoctrination as if the universe as perceived by our senses and minds is real, thereby rendering ephemeral material and social goals as worthwhile of pursuit.

Yuyutsu,

I imagine that you imagine that you had something significant to say but my imagining of your imagining imagined, and it only took an extremely slight instant, that you really didn't. Or did I just imagine that?

I have already explained some of this before but mixing concepts derived from philosophy, metaphysics, solipsism and, catachresis without due regard for reason which is the universally proven best way to interpret the senses, they are bound to clash and make no discernible practical addition to a conversation at all. Your post was an excellent example of that.

Mind you, it is a great way to keep the mind confused to such a degree that it thinks it is being profound when it really is expounding highly subjective nonsense.

Sorry to be the one to break the bad news. Someone had to.

David

Dear David,

So the human mind, full of itself, has universally "proven" that its reasoning is the *best* way to interpret the senses, so has the cat "proven" that he's the *best* to guard the cream and the blind "proven" he's the *best* to lead the blind.

Mind you, it is a great way to keep the mind confused to such a degree that it thinks it is being profound when it really is expounding highly objective nonsense.

Sorry to be the one to break the good news. Someone had to.

Dear David (Atheist etc.)

You wrote: "However, you are speaking of times when nearly all people were religious or said they were out of fear of being ostracised depending what country was involved. There was no understanding of evolution and the theist and deist idea was was in the majority by far."

No, David, I am also speaking of current times. There is a struggle within Christianity and Judaism to accept homosexuals and the female clergy. This struggle is going on in the present. As I mentioned in my post (which you didn't seem to notice) it is a struggle because there are people of conflicting views within the religions at present.

The civil rights movement in the United States was a great expression of conscience against the legal oppression of black people. Prominent in the movement was Martin Luther King Jr. and other clergy, both white and black. People of good will, many religious and also non-religious, supported this movement.

One of the problems with humanity is we tend to ascribe virtues to those who agree with us and vices to those who disagree with us. Although I believe in no supernatural entities I will join with religious people when I think they are on the right track.

I am concerned with militarism, racism, inequities in society and the destruction of the environment. I find that many religious people have the same concerns. Where I can work with them I will even though I do not believe what they believe in regarding supernatural fairy tales.

http://www.ekklesia.co.uk and www.sojo.net are the addresses of two religious groups. They both have a social conscience. I support much of what they are doing and will continue to support them. I have joined with Catholics connected with Dorothy Day houses when they have protested militarism. They exist very much in the present, and I think are a force for good.

david f,

I was referring to your mention of Castellio and John Brown. They were from another era. If you are speaking of current times the voices that get attention are Pell, Jensen and shamefully the Australian Christian Lobby who represent very few Christians and the like as well as the Pope and let's not forget the many imams and other religious leaders and promoters.

My suggestion would be approach organisations concerned with the matters I have raised and ask them why progress is so slow in reform. I am involved with many of them to larger or lesser degrees and it is no secret that religion is the problem.

Whether there are good or bad religious people is irrelevant. If you cannot concede this point it will not be very productive in continuing with this discussion.

Would the struggle over these issues in religious circles even exist if the measures I suggested about how children should be fairly treated were implemented?

It is not the mandate of the AFA to join with religious organisations who still promote mental child abuse as I have described. Individual members of such faiths may disagree with it and they should make their voices heard.

It is your way to affiliate yourself with various Christian organisations, but it is not our way. I applaud you for the effort but the power to make change is in the general population. Awareness is a big part of the answer. Therefore I am here.

If atheism was causing the concerns I have mentioned or others similar, I would give away being president and pro-actively work against it.

I'm not after an argument about this.

David

Dear David (AFA),

I am more concerned with what people do than with what they believe. If someone is going in the direction I want to go I will go with them. That is working for change. We have priorities for what is most important. I make no secret of my lack of religious belief.

You mentioned mental child abuse. As far as I am concerned preparing a child to accept later going to war when he or she becomes an adult is mental child abuse. That is done in our society by exalting what is called the Anzac spirit. Advertising which makes possession of particular objects a matter of self esteem and status is another form of child abuse. Where a religious group is concerned with those forms of mental child abuse I will support them.

In many areas religion is a problem. I support separation of religion and state, oppose chaplains in the schools and subsidising of religious schools and the intrusion of religious indoctrination where it is not wanted. I left the Humanist society of Queensland when some members supported the oppression of Christians in China by the current Chinese government. They have since left, and I have rejoined the society.

david f,

I agree with the sentiments expressed in your post although I consider the minor differences between us revolves around child abuse that goes beyond the grave by creating terror in the mind of a child. Naturally there is no actual terror beyond the grave but a child is incapable of the maturity of thought to recognise that.

This indoctrination process expresses itself with the adult portraying actions and supporting a system that is expressly against the well-being and happiness of other citizens because of choosing first and foremost what its religion demands.

I hope I haven’t portrayed atheism as being the inoculation of all things idiotic because it is not, but in my opinion the general consensus of rational thought is that society would be a lot better off if more of it was utilised.

You will notice on these forums now that people are willing to stand up against religious ideas that don’t hold water. It has taken many decades for that situation to now exist. When I first started involving myself publicly with the idea there is probably no god, the reaction was horrendous against such thinking. Change is slow in a lifetime but as for the arrow of history, there is a swift alteration going on that we all have to accommodate.

There is no point in denying this as the phenomena is historically unprecedented as it is also unstoppable as statistics worldwide are showing.

I have a deep sadness for those trapped socially and some financially who cannot make the change away from religion. Others feel they are right but are not willing to look at the evidence supporting the no god hypothesis. As I said, if it were atheism causing strife, I would drop it. That is the big difference between atheism and religion. Atheists are capable of changing with new information but many religious people would rather hang on grimly no matter what the evidence demonstrates.

In all societies when religion becomes more than a personal experience which is no-one’s business, it creates strife for others and the planet.

Pax

David

AJ Philips,

I cannot understand your point. David f made two statements that I could agree with, so i concatenated them into one quote to tell him that. I did not see a need to analyze why he could have made those statements, neither, I think, he will analyze why I agreed.

>>Could you explain how one determines whether or not their interpretation of scripture is "proper"? How does one know whether they should take a passage literally or metaphorically?<<
I am aware that the word “proper” was vague here. If you are a Catholic, you will accept the interpretation given by a Catholic exegete authorised by the Church. If you are a Christian, you have a more free choice of the exegetes whose interpretation you accept as to be proper for 21st century. If you keep on asking too much you might be referred to Hans-Georg Gadamer, perhaps the father of philosophical hermeneutics (of texts). If you are an atheist , you have an even wider choice of specialists on interpreting ancient texts, or you can adhere to your own interpretation. Not being a specialist this is all I can say.

Of course, you can investigate the Scripture also from other points of view, e.g. whethe the stories they describe - irrespective of the exegetic content comprehensible to a 21st century reader - correspond to facts that history can confirm, etc.

If you are interested in possible interpretations of the Abraham and Isaac stories - not only Jewish and Christian but also Muslim - you can check them e.g. on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binding_of_Isaac. I have nothing to add to that since, as mentioned a couple of times, I am not an expert on these matters.

Csteele already corrected me that belief in God-Creator is not what we have in common, so you can relax. I also take it that you did not understand my article, which I accept as my fault . Metaphors, like jokes, are not something you explain: you either get them or you don’t get them and you kill them if you try to explain them.

Pericles,

Let me repeat for the x-th time that I never claimed there was a belief system or world view common to all atheists - your “common-atheist-belief-system”. I am sure there are atheists whose belief system differs from that of Bertrand Russell as exposed in his “What I believe”.

I fail to understand why you had to give two syllogisms that any fourth-grader could drive massive holes through.

>>What confuses him is that while Christianity instructs a Christian's personal belief system, atheism (being a non-belief system) cannot, by definition, instruct any specific individual's personal belief system.<<

I never claimed that atheism INSTRUCTS an atheist’s belief system. [Or is it now a non-belief system, meaning that what e.g. Russell believes, as described in his book, are suddenly non-beliefs? This sounds like runner who claimed a woman who has an abortion does not have a conviction just because he does not agree with her.] Even in case of Christians that “instruction” is stronger with Catholics than with non-Catholics.

Perhaps an example: If you are a member of a political party some of your political beliefs are “instructed” by your party. If you are not a member of any party, you are more free to choose your political beliefs. If you are a voter for that political party your political beliefs are apparently somewhere in between being instructed and being freely chosen. However the political beliefs of even somebody who is not a member of any party (or a non-voter) are somehow related to the fact that he/she decided not to be a member of any party (not to vote).

Dear csteele,

So I misread you again, you do not believe in God-Creator, whatever you offer as an explanation. Fair enough. As far as the operating systems we are using are concerned, you are right I use Mac OS X, and if you use Windows I can see what you mean by saying that it is susceptible to viruses, and periodically crashes, since I tried it once for a couple of years. If that is lot of fun then we have obviously different approaches not only to life but also to our computers.

Dear George,

Ah serendipity validating a metaphor. Poetic.

While my computing is Windows based I do use an Apple OS on my phone. As you probably are aware the term used by those who decide to rid themselves of the strictures imposed by that corporation is to ’Jail Break’ their device.

I have chosen freedom of interpretation in all its riotous glory while you take comfort in ’exegete authorised by the Church’.

We are indeed different but as I have said all along I wouldn't have it any other way.

Dear csteele,

As you know, Apple OS and Mac OS X are not the same thing, the one is running my iPad, the other my iMac, but they are certainly related. And ‘Jail Break’ is indeed a good metaphor for forming one’s own world-view, including your preferred freedom of interpretation, which we two look at from different angles, not necessarily 180 degrees apart.

As far as taking comfort is concerned, I had recently a hip replacement and I indeed took comfort from the fact that the operation was carried out by a specialist acknowledged as such by the University he graduated from, rather than by somebody who decided for himself/herself that he/she was a specialist in these matters.

Perhaps it is the lack of clarity in your own position that causes these aberrations, George.

>>Pericles, Let me repeat for the x-th time that I never claimed there was a belief system or world view common to all atheists - your “common-atheist-belief-system”.<<

Yet you step very close to the edge with statements such as this.

>>“…there are atheist world-views or belief systems (they have something in common but are not all identical), the same as there are e.g. Christian belief systems…”<<

The airy suggestion that "they have something in common but are not all identical" only goes so far to qualify your assertion that "there are atheist world-views or belief systems".

You further define your position with the statement that there are atheist belief systems "the same as there are e.g. Christian belief systems".

I took this to mean that you envisage the atheist equivalents of Catholics, Methodists, Protestants, Quakers etc., each with their own "set" of rituals, observances etc. based upon a specific interpretation of Christianity. Only in our case, systems based upon a specific interpretation of atheism.

Atheists-for-AFL, for example, who worship at the G every Saturday in winter, but whose activities are informed somehow by their atheism. And of course the Atheists-for-mass-murder, a group whose actions are guided by the specific atheism of Pol Pot.

But thank you for this clarification.

>>I never claimed there was a belief system or world view common to all atheists<<

A sentiment with which I completely agree. And by definition, therefore, I disagree with the author of the original article to which you linked.

"...such diffidence contributes to the false image of the atheist as someone whose convictions are removed from ordinary experience. It is vital to show that there are indeed atheists in foxholes, and wherever else human beings suffer and die.".

Because there is no common belief system, it is entirely wrong to suggest there is a common experience. Such an approach denies our individuality, and therefore our individual compassion. Proselytising atheism-in-general contributes nothing, while proselytising the atheism of Pol Pot might encounter some cultural resistance.

Pericles,

I really do not know how to put it clearer: there are atheist belief systems (or collections of beliefs, if you prefer) and world views (note the plural) adhered to by atheists (one of them is apparently explicitly described by Russell in his “What I believe”), but there is NO belief system or world view that could be called THE atheist belief system/collection or world view. Like there are European languages spoken by Europeans but there is NO language that could be called THE European language. Or if you speak of brown horses, the adjective is there just to distinguish a class of horses from among many others. I really do not see where you saw the difficulty.

>>Proselytising atheism-in-general contributes nothing,<<

Contributes noting to what? Absence of belief in a Divine as such contributes indeed nothing to how we feel about ourselves the world we perceive or how we can better understand it and act morally. Did you have that in mind? I thought that was rather the position of the opposite proselytizers.

>>while proselytising the atheism of Pol Pot might encounter some cultural resistance.<<

I don’t think anybody here would endorse proselytizing the atheism of Pol Pot or Islam as (mis)understood by islamic terrorists or Christianity as (mis)understood by the Inquisition.

As for proselytising atheism-in-general, if I understand what you mean, is simply proselytizing or advertising the advantages of the absence of belief in the Divine. You either approve of that, but then you must assign the same rights to those who want to proselytize belief in the Divine. Or deny the rights to proselytize to both equally. Unless you want to drive religion underground, as I mentioned in an earlier post

That certainly clarifies your position, George. Which means that I can now confidently disagree with your premise, safe in the knowledge that I have understood it.

>>...there are atheist belief systems (or collections of beliefs, if you prefer) and world views (note the plural) adhered to by atheists (one of them is apparently explicitly described by Russell in his “What I believe”)<<

“What I believe” explains Russell's personal philosophy, that contains his conviction that there is no God. But there is no "belief system", or even "collection of beliefs", that can be described as "Russellism", or "Russellianity".

Similarly, my own belief system - which contains Russellianity only in the sense that I am also an atheist - cannot be described as "Periclesianity", and has no followers, no disciples, no preachers, no churches, no hierarchy and no "bible".

Let me take a look at it from another angle.

Let us assume for a moment that the ethos by which I live is indistinguishable from that of Christianity, with the sole exception that i) I don't believe in God and ii) don't accept that Jesus is my saviour, or whatever the appropriate words may be. My belief system includes atheism, just as Russell's does. With no discernible difference in the way I conduct my life (we are talking hypothetically here, I can assure you) is my "worldview" Christian or Atheist?

>>You either approve of that, but then you must assign the same rights to those who want to proselytize belief in the Divine.<<

I thought I had covered that. I see absolutely no value or benefit whatsoever in proselytizing atheism, which is why I would tend to discourage Susan Jacoby from her desire to do so. My reading of her article suggests that her intentions are more along the lines of telling Christians to htfu, and not lean upon a non-existent deity to "get them through", or grant their requests, or forgive their sins.

It is exactly the same for "proselytizing for the Divine", as you call it. Both can be can be harmful in some situations, and completely benign in others.

Dear George,

Did your specialist cold call claim you ill without examining you? Or claim your children were sick from the day they were born, again without ever seeing them? People can seek the comforts of a faith as long as it is their choice. There is a sense that much of the proselyting done by all sides involves first dumping the bucket of mud on a person's head then offering to show them how to get clean.

I have been reflecting on the story of the Belgian twins who were euthanased last month.

“The two men, 45, from the Antwerp region were both born deaf and sought euthanasia after finding that they would also soon go blind.
The pair told doctors that they were unable to bear the thought of not being able to see each other again. The twin brothers had spent their entire lives together, sharing a flat and both working as cobblers.”
http://www.businessinsider.com/two-deaf-twins-in-belgium-allowed-to-die-in-unique-euthanasia-case-2013-1#ixzz2I7LrsyZF

The doctor presiding the deaths said “They were very happy. It was a relief to see the end of their suffering,” … “They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well and a rich conversation. The the separation from their parents and brother was very serene and beautiful. At the last there was a little wave of their hands and then they were gone.”

Wow!

It drew thoughts of Saul's death “The battle became fierce against Saul. The archers hit him, and he was severely wounded by the archers. Then Saul said to his armorbearer, "Draw your sword, and thrust me through with it, lest these uncircumcised men come and thrust me through and abuse me." But his armorbearer would not, for he was greatly afraid. Therefore Saul took a sword and fell on it. And when his armorbearer saw that Saul was dead, he also fell on his sword, and died with him.”

All the deaths sought dignity. My interpretation is that God revealed in the OT would condemn none.

The above are mere musings so don't feel you have to respond.

Dear Pericles,

I must pick you up on one point.

No one can walk with the throng of other adherents from Flinders Street toward the G with its halo of light and the flocks of seagulls wheeling around on a magical September finals night and not know it is a religious experience, often a quite deep one. The atmosphere is tribal, it is hopeful, it sings with expectation and it is reverential.

No one is an atheist on those nights.

Pericles,

OK, so you do not like the adjective “atheist” to refer to personal beliefs (though I do not see how a belief could be impersonal), systematized or not, held by an atheist. And Russell should have called his book not “What I believe” but “What is my personal philosophy”. Or you do not like the word “belief” when referring to non-religious convictions, like runner does not like the word “conviction” when referring to convictions he does not agree with.

Whichever it is, I do not see any point in continuing in this nit-picking about proper terminology. I respect your point of view, as you can see from my original post to pelican (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153188), where I wrote “you use the term ‘belief system’, that is OK with me, however some atheists seem to claim they do not have a belief system”.

Thanks for the clear position as to who should proselytize. I would have guessed it having followed your recent debate with David (of AFoA).

Dear csteele,

>>The above are mere musings so don't feel you have to respond.<<
So I don’t respond, nevertheless I read your “musings” with interest. If I did continue, I would have to further explain what I meant when I wrote that we two look at these matters from different angles, not necessarily mutually opposite. That would not be easy, so, indeed, let us leave it at that.

George,

“Thanks for the clear position as to who should proselytize. I would have guessed it having followed your recent debate with David (of AFoA).”

The generally accepted definition of proselytise is along the lines of that in Word Web: - Convert to another faith or religion –

The Australian Concise Oxford Dictionary deems a proselyte as a person converted from an opinion, creed or party.

Its interesting how this word comes up in discussions about no religion or atheism. It’s totally irrelevant of course. But some do use it in the pejorative as debating ploy to win over the audience. It does seem to influence those not quite up to standard with the English language and have a less than adequate understanding of atheism.

Even stretching a definition into a form not meant using the Oxford version, what is the ‘opinion’ of an atheist? It can only be that waiting for evidence for a god is an opinion. That’s ridiculous of course.

Atheism is not a ‘creed’, so that one doesn’t work either. What about atheism being a ‘party’. Nope, that’s no good either.

So the lesson is that those who use this word in relation to atheism are probably having trouble formulating their own case to be coherent and so they go down the path of attempting to denigrate the opposition using obfuscation.

And don’t think for a moment that it is only religious people who do this. Heavens no, atheists are well capable of such shenanigans also.

David

It isn't that I don't "like" it, George.

>>OK, so you do not like the adjective “atheist” to refer to personal beliefs (though I do not see how a belief could be impersonal), systematized or not, held by an atheist<<

It is because it doesn't.

Atheism is not a belief, it is a non-belief. It is a non-belief in deities. So while a belief system such as Christianity requires that it informs your thinking and your actions, such a situation cannot arise with atheism. That is the major difference between the religious and the atheist - a religious person is defined by their religion, but an atheist is not - cannot be - defined by their atheism.

This is not "nit-picking about proper terminology". It is fundamental to the understanding of the difference between theism and atheism.

>>And Russell should have called his book not “What I believe” but “What is my personal philosophy”<<

This demonstrates quite precisely the difference in our views. Of course Russell should call his book “What I believe” - I actually have a copy with me as I write - because that is precisely what he writes about: his beliefs. His chapter headings are informative: "Nature and Man", "The Good Life", "Moral Rules", "Salvation" and "Science and Happiness". In these chapters, he discusses his beliefs.

His atheism is the result of those beliefs, not the cause of it.

This is an absolutely fundamental difference.

George,

There was nothing ambiguous about any of my post and yet most of your reply was in response to something entirely different to anything I had said. Are you alright?

<<I cannot understand your point. david f made two statements that I could agree with, so i concatenated them into one quote to tell him that.>>

No, if you look again, you'll actually find you separated them into two quotes, which is fine (that’s not even what I complained about), but they were dealt with back-to-front (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153499), which in turn took the wind out of what I think was david f's point. I doubt he was just randomly being agreeable and pointlessly repeating what he has already told you many times before - as your broken response implied. There was a point there, and one that you could skirt around by quoting the two paragraphs back-to-front, thus ignoring the operative word "however".

I’m suspicious of this because it is usually instinctive, logical and easier to quote statements in their correct order. To go out of your way to quote, and respond to, the two paragraphs in the wrong order actually requires forethought and effort.

<<I did not see a need to analyze why he could have made those statements...>>

I didn’t say anything about his motives and nor did I suggest that you analysing anything. I was talking about his point - that he too, as an atheist, can appreciate the wisdom in holy books (which in turn weakens the significance of the Bible to Christianity if that is the only way in which you are going to speak of it, or the only regard in which you hold it in re Christianity.

Regarding what you've said about "proper" interpretations, would I be right in presuming, then, that you weren't necessarily saying that there was any one objectively right and wrong way of interpreting scripture?

As for the interpretations of the binding of Isaac, I didn't find anything new at the Wiki page you linked to.

Continued…

…Continued

There was a bit of the usual scratching around trying to reconcile such an abhorrent and immoral request from a supposedly omnibenevolent god, but broadly speaking, it was the same as my own and I don't see why they would only be comprehensible to those within Judaism and Christianity.

Your reluctance to go into any interpretations, based on the non-believer’s ability to understand the story, hinted at some deep mystical message that you were deliberately holding back from us and I can only guess as to where that reluctance would come from or why you might want to hint at some mysterious meaning. Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the irreconcilability of the story with an omnibenevolent God? I would be too.

<<I have nothing to add to that since, as mentioned a couple of times, I am not an expert on these matters.>>

You shouldn’t need to be. What kind of a god communicates the most important message for mankind through a book that requires experts to interpret?

Either way, when it comes to what message the original authors of those passages were wanting to convey, or what story they wanted to tell, then expertise in the various languages and culture of the time would help (heck, it is only because of these experts that we now know the "virgin" Mary was actually just the "young" Mary). However, no expertise is required to interpret what God’s point was in that story, or what he was thinking at the time, as the supernatural is entirely speculative - there is no such thing as an expert in it.

<<Metaphors, like jokes, are not something you explain: you either get them or you don’t get them and you kill them if you try to explain them.>>

I wasn’t asking you to explain how they were metaphors; the very fact that I took one of your metaphors and ran with it (in order to ask you what it is that others like david f and I are not understanding) suggested that I most certainly understood the point they were trying to get across.

David David (of AFoA),

It was not I who suggested atheists should “proselytize”, it was Susan Jacoby, the atheist author of the article I linked to in my original entry here. So you should address your explanations to her. I was only asking that IF THEY DO proselytize - whatever she understood by that word - whether theists should be allowed to do the same.

Pericles,

>>Atheism is not a belief<<
I never said it was. The same about some other statements you seem to attribute to me.

I can only promise to you that I’ll be more careful when assigning the adjective “atheist” (not to a belief - I never did that - but) to THE SET of beliefs of somebody who calls himself an atheist like e.g. Russell. I really do not know what else you want from me.

[I certainly would not object if you called Christian my set of beliefs that underlie my world-view. This set overlaps with Russell’s, but is obviously not identical with it, among other things also because it contains a subset referred to as the tenets (or beliefs) of Christianity.]

I also acknowledge that after all Russell was OK when he called his book what he called it.

AJ Philips,

Had I reacted inappropriately to david f’s post, he would have told me, and I’d probably have apologized TO HIM.

>> would I be right in presuming, then, that you weren't necessarily saying that there was any one objectively right and wrong way of interpreting scripture? <<

I really don’t know what it means an “objectively right and wrong way of interpreting” a text. As I said, I am not a specialist in philosophical hermeneutics.: I tried to read Gadamer’s “Truth and Method”, perhaps the “bible” on hermeneutics, but could not understand much of it. Biblical hermeneutics, exegesis is, I suspect, not much simpler.

Anyhow, there are a number of ways to interpret ancient texts, and as far as the Bible is concerned, you choose yours, I choose mine (self-made or accepted ready-made by those whose expertise I trust).

You seem to know what I think or what motivates me to think the way I think and compose my world-view. I don’t pretend to know your motivations, only respect them. I certainly do not wish to convert you. If there are reasons for your "conversion" - one direction or the other - you have to find them for yourself. This, I remember, we have been through here already some time ago.

The following is not a metaphor but an Oriental wisdom (Chuang Tzu, translation by Thomas Merton):

If you persist in trying
To attain what is never attained
(It is Tao’s gift!)
If you persist in making effort
To obtain what effort cannot get;
If you persist in reasoning
About what cannot be understood,
You will be destroyed
By the very thing you seek.

To know when to stop
To know when you can get no further
By your own action
This is the right beginning.

Yep, I think we can safely leave it there, George.

>>I can only promise to you that I’ll be more careful when assigning the adjective “atheist” (not to a belief - I never did that - but) to THE SET of beliefs of somebody who calls himself an atheist like e.g. Russell. I really do not know what else you want from me<<

If I have unpacked that correctly, it would appear that you agree with me that atheism is unable, by definition, to inform or underpin any individual's belief system. It may feature within those beliefs, but it does not inform that belief system by defining e.g. whether one may covet his neighbour's ass, or not. My only remaining quibble, which I won't bother to pursue unless you feel it necessary, is that atheism should not be considers a fully-formed "set of beliefs", but simply one feature amongst many.

Enjoy your day.

George,

“It was not I who suggested atheists should “proselytize”, it was Susan Jacoby…”

You have not disagreed with Jacoby but rather have supported her one –line notion, albeit in an unclear fashion. She was not speaking of proselytising atheism as such but addressing those who class themselves as freethinkers, agnostics, secular humanists etc. that they should rather, disregard the bad connotations of the word atheism and call themselves atheists and speak up about a rational and not just religious approach to world affairs.

May I suggest that you use language to express opinions clearly?

Your first post set the scene by asking the question should atheists and the theists be fearful of seeming-to-proselytise. As religion does proselytise and not just seems to, then you have made the same inference for atheism. That is, atheism is capable of being proselytised, which is utter unmitigated nonsense to which you now agree but did not before.

Here is the chain of events from your posts.

“Do our atheist friends here agree that not only those of the “secular community” but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153000

The below sentence shows the same dichotomy of inference;

“…YES in both case, that you agree that in general theists and atheist should have the same rights to proselytize…” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153102

Below is agreeing that atheism and theism with the sticking point of when and how;

“…on whether when and how to proselytize or not can be applied to both sides, theist or atheist. In particular,…” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153188

Below you out-rightly state that atheism can be proselytised. The Stalinist inclusion was not necessary and does not explain away your statement. Of course you meant ‘Marxist–Leninist ideology’ that included forced atheism which has nothing to do with freely chosen atheism in a democracy.

“Imagine the reaction here if I did the same with atheism in its generality, based on my personal experience with “proselytized atheism” (well, our Stalinist teachers called it “scientific atheism”)” http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153336

Now that we agee that atheism cannot be proselytised, let’s drop the discussion.

David

David David (of AFoA),

>>Now that we agee that atheism cannot be proselytised,<<
I agree that atheism cannot be proselytized, as the term is understood by you. However, that was not my question since I did not know your definition of the term. I was asking that IF THEY (freethinkers, agnostics, secular humanists etc. as you wish) do proselytize (as the term is understood by Susan Jacoby) whether theists should be allowed to do THE SAME.

>>let’s drop the discussion.<<
A veru clever suggestion that I happily endorse.

Pericles,

I do not understand how an atheist should be concerned about coveting his neighbour’s ass (which, anyhow, is a moral instruction, commandment, not a belief).

As to atheism “informing” your belief system, it again, I think, depends on what you mean by that word and what is your belief system.

If by an atheist position you mean “absense of belief in the Spiritual, Divine or what you call it”, then such an absence will influence, make itself visible - is that “inform”? - the atheist’s belief system at least by the ABSENCE of some beliefs e.g. in God, in afterlife, etc.. For instance, Russell replaced the latter with “I believe that when I die that I shall rot and nothing of my ego shall survive”, which you would not find in my belief system. Materialists will have the belief in God replaced by the belief in “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications.”, as defined in my dictionary.”

>>atheism should not be considers a fully-formed "set of beliefs", but simply one feature amongst many.<<
Certainly, atheism is not a "set of beliefs", but the personal set of beliefs of an atheist will reflect (be informed by) the fact that the person is an atheist.

In general, I think it is easier to define who is an atheist than to define what is atheism (c.f. http://moses.creighton.edu/jrs/2009/2009-4.pdf).

Enjoy your summer days (it is freezing and snowy winter here) as well.

George,

"A veru clever suggestion that I happily endorse."

Not so much a 'clever' suggestion, but one that fulfils all the facts.

David

George,

<<Had I reacted inappropriately to david f’s post, he would have told me, and I’d probably have apologized TO HIM.>>

I disagree. I think david f is too polite to want to point that out. But that’s just my opinion and whether or not he would have, or did, is irrelevant anyway, as I have given ample reason to suggest suspicious motives regardless of how david f took your response.

I’m not sure what the capitals are about either. It’s not like anything I said suggested that I’d like you to apologise to me and the fact that the exchange didn’t include me doesn’t negate anything I’ve said either.

<<I really don’t know what it means an “objectively right and wrong way of interpreting” a text.>>

Well, you had said to csteele, “So … you believe in a God-Creator, and accept the Scripture as a source of wisdom if properly interpreted.”, which suggests that you believe there is a right and a wrong way to interpret scripture. You don’t have to know what the right way is to have an opinion on this, so whether or not you’re an expert in hermeneutics is completely irrelevant. I don’t have to be an expert in science to have an opinion on whether or not there is a right way of producing results.

<<You seem to know what I think or what motivates me to think the way I think and compose my world-view.>>

Well, spotting motives has always been one of my strengths. But I was only speculating as to why you would be so (or at least appear to be so) reluctant to give your particular interpretation of the binding of Isaac (perhaps I should have said “Your APPARENT reluctance…”). I had hoped that my question mark and inclusion of the word “perhaps” in, “Perhaps you are uncomfortable with the irreconcilability of the story with an omnibenevolent God?”, would prevent any accusations of presuming to know what motivates you.

Continued…

…Continued

Rather than getting personal, however, I was merely seizing the opportunity to point out the irreconcilability of such an immoral request from a supposedly omnibenevolent God, and it comes as no surprise to me that you chose not to address that aspect of what I had said.

Anyway, you reminded me that you were no expert on Biblical exegesis and only linked to the Wiki article when I asked for your interpretation of the binding of Isaac that apparently required one to be part of the ingroup to understand, but now you’re saying, “…as far as the Bible is concerned, you choose [your interpretation], I choose mine…” So does one need to be an expert in Biblical exegesis to have an interpretation or not? Is there a proper way to interpret scripture or not?

Those are now rhetorical questions, by the way. My point here is that if this kind of flailing doesn’t display a reluctance to give one’s own interpretation of the binding of Isaac, then I don’t know what does.

More importantly, I suppose, (and regardless of what your answer to the above questions would be) how does this all sit with a god that has an important message that he wants to share with mankind? Why would God communicate in such an obtuse way? And even if expert interpretations weren’t required, why would God communicate to us through ancient texts written by anonymous authors in languages that die out unless he didn’t care about those who actually understand the nature of evidence?

You can take these as rhetorical questions too, if you'd like. I think the answer is pretty obvious.

“There seem to be only two kinds of people: Those who think that metaphors are facts, and those who know that they are not facts. Those who know they are not facts are what we call "atheists," and those who think they are facts are "religious. " Which group really gets the message?”
- Joseph Campbell

Here’s one metaphor for you:

All the world’s a stage,
And all the men and women merely players;
They have their exits and their entrances.
— William Shakespeare, As You Like It,

Dear George,

My heart goes out to you. You must be banging your head against a brick wall with the responses you get from these guys.

You being the lone calm star in the sky among the noisy fire CRACKERS.

You either get it or you don’t. The ones that don’t get it are mere fundamentalists.

Literal readings, vs. deeper readings (the ones with spirit).

Unfortunately, because of the pervasive influence of the Enlightenment on our society today, we value metaphorical language less than literal language, even distrusting metaphorical language.

AJ Philips,

You obviously have your own answers to all those questions - rhetorical or not - that you ask, answers you yourself have already formed in support of, or as a consequence of, your world-view.

That is fine, it is the same with me, except that I listen to other’s opinions, perspectives, in order to both refine and broaden my own perspective. Without expecting answers to questions I pose through which I can prove myself right and them wrong in situations which admit other than just yes or no answers. This is true when trying to interpret for oneself ancient “sacred” texts, this is also true when trying to interpret the findings of science, i.e. when crossing the threshold from science to philosophy of science, as I tried to hint at in http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14464.

[Nevertheless, let me try to address your second last paragraph: If God is seen as represented by the Abrahamic religions, for a human to judge as irrational or immoral his actions or the way He revealed them to us is even more absurd than for a three years old son of an e.g. a university professor to judge his father’s professional activity or the appropriateness of the way he explains these to his son. As to the latter, of course, the son can simply say, I don’t understand, and the benevolent father would not use coercion to make him “understand”. That is why we have also atheists. This, of corse, is again a metaphor not an argument.]

Dear Constance,

Thanks for the words of appreciation expressed via a fitting metaphor. As said before, all I was interested in when launching this thread: whether, in a perfected secular society that everybody is aiming at, basic Christian convictions could coexists as respectable alternatives to secular humanist convictions, or whether Christianity will eventually be forced to go underground as it almost happened in Communist countries. So I appreciate even those reactions here that, in your words, are brick walls I have to bang my head against.

Dear George,

You have posed what I think is a false alternative. You asked if Christianity would be regarded as a respectable alternative to secular humanist convictions or would it have to go underground in a secular society. I understand a secular society to be one in which worldviews regarding religion are simply no business of the state. The state in a secular society does not care whether a citizen is a Catholic, a secular humanist, a New Ager or anything else in that line. Secular humanism is not the official worldview in a secular society. There is no official worldview. Whether a secular humanist considers Catholicism a respective alternative or not is completely irrelevant. The state in a secular society simply considers religious or non-religious worldviews no business of the state.

In a communist society there was an official view called Marxism in which religion was a relict of a past unenlightened age. My understanding of a secular society is quite different.

I appreciate the worldview informed by Catholicism even though I don't respect it as according to reason. Right now I am reading "Jerusalem, Jerusalem" by James Carroll, a Catholic who has left the priesthood but not the church. I am enjoying getting to know his outlook as a Catholic and have read several other books by him.

I enjoy reading Joyce. Although he was at odds with the church his books are permeated with Catholicism. One doesn't have to feel views are respectable for them to be worthwhile and fascinating. I can also appreciate worldviews that I think are not informed by reason. Perhaps none of them are. Perhaps we are slaves to our passions, and reason simply justifies them. That was Hume's view, and maybe he was right.

Dear david f,

>>You asked if Christianity would be regarded as a respectable alternative to secular humanist convictions ... <<

I ask whether Christianity (or Juadism, Hinduism etc) should be an accepted (to avoid the word respectable) by the state alternative (not THE alternative) of (atheist) secular humanism (not society!), with no a priori privileges for either e.g. on the basis of "we are right, they are wrong". I hope so, and so does for instance the atheist philosopher Jürgen Habermas, whose views are respected by many Christians. I think he even coined the term secular society. See for instance his “The Dialectics of Secularisation” coauthored with the present pope (Ignatius Press, 2010).

“Jürgen Habermas has surprised many observers with his call for "the secular society to acquire a new understanding of religious convictions" ... Habermas discusses whether secular reason provides sufficient grounds for a democratic constitutional state. Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI argues for the necessity of certain moral principles for maintaining a free state, and for the importance of genuine reason and authentic religion, rather than what he calls "pathologies of reason and religion", in order to uphold the states moral foundations. Both men insist that proponents of secular reason and religious conviction should learn from each other, even as they differ over the particular ways that mutual learning should occur.” (Book description by amazon.com)

>>I understand a secular society to be one in which worldviews regarding religion are simply no business of the state.<<
I agree, provided "secular humanism" is not pushed into the postion a religion (e.g. Christianity) used to hold in a pre-secular society. What you write then is a description of a secular society, that I agree with, and I think is also in agreement with Habermas’ understanding.

Where we differ is the application of the adjective “respectable”: I can respect other world-views that differ from mine (not all) because I do not think that those who subscribe to an atheist world-view (however perceived) are ALL immoral, neither do I think that those who subscribe to a religious, e.g. Christian, world-view (however perceived) are ALL irrational.

Dear George,

You wrote: "Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI argues for the necessity of certain moral principles for maintaining a free state, and for the importance of genuine reason and authentic religion, rather than what he calls "pathologies of reason and religion", in order to uphold the states moral foundations."

The moral principles of the above mentioned cleric are of no more interest to the secular state than mine. I suspect that "pathologies of reason and religion" are merely words to describe those views he doesn't agree with.

There is a distinction between morality and legality expressed by Geoffry Fisher, Archbishop of Canterbury. "In a civilized society all crimes are likely to be sins, but most sins are not and should not be treated as crimes. Man's ultimate responsibility is to God alone."

In a secular state the morality of its citizens are of no more concern to the state than their religious conviction. The state asks its citizens to obey the laws, but their morals are their own business.

Benedict XVI's moral principles are irrelevant to the secular state.

Dear david f,
>>You wrote: "Joseph Ratzinger/Benedict XVI ...<<
These are not my words but the description of the book by ammazon.com. I am aware that you do not agree with Benedict.

>>Benedict XVI's moral principles are irrelevant to the secular state.<<
This may be so, although Jürgen Habermas, probably the most prominent of living German philosophers and sociologists, does not agree otherwise he would not dialogue with the pope. I think it again boils down to respecting other opinions even if they look immoral, irrational or just irrelevant from my point of view.

This was also implicit in my question: whether the views of the representative of a billion of formal (baptised) - and some tens, if not hundreds, of millions of self-professed - Catholics, seen as a moral authority on e.g. social justice by many others, might be deemed to be irrelevant to a state run by (atheist) secular humanists. As I said, Habermas does not seem to think such a society would be a good solution even for open minded atheists.

Regardless of the number of communicants who follow the pope, the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Dalai Lama, the Chief Rabbi of East Jipip or other esteemed clerics their views are not relevant to the actions of the secular state. The secular state regards the religious views of its citizens as none of its business. In return various religious groupings do not pursue their sectarian agenda through the power of the state.

The US had Prohibition, a disastrous experiment in trying to enforce morality on its citizens. Its repeal saw alcoholism as a medical and not a moral problem. Hopefully drugs will be treated the same. A secular government is not a source of morality.

You are concerned about the possibility of Christians having to go underground. Christians of all kinds have freedom of worship. However, that does not mean they can use the power of the state to push their religious practices on other people.

I personally think the pope is not an adequate moral guide. http://www.standard.co.uk/news/pope-led-coverup-of-child-abuse-by-priests-7220621.html tells how he covered up systematic child abuse by clergy under his jurisdiction. Although his morality is inferior to mine since I would neither engage in sexual abuse nor cover it up if I knew of others who did it I would not pose myself as a moral guide.

However, the secular state is not a moral guide either. If it tries to be it exceeds its charter.

I think the US is wrong in having a representative at the Vatican.

Dear david f,

Sorry, I wanted to call your (and others) attention to Habermas and his solution of the problem of secular society, not the Pope whose views I did not expect you to share.

I referred to the Pope as an authority on social justice not on how to handle child abuse, which opens another, irrelevant to this thread, can of worms [I said whatever I thought I could say to the question of child abuse by Catholic clergy in the thread http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=10333&page=0; see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5422#148086. As to your link to an obviously one-sided report, here is one http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/apologetics/ap0325.htm#013, probably also one-sided, from the other side. It at least - unlike the report you linked to - contains a link to the document they are talking about.]

I agree that the secular state is not a moral guide, and I do not think Habermas thinks otherwise.

Also, I do not know how do Christians (in contemporary Western countries) “use the power of state to push their religious practices on other people”, except using facilities, available in a democracy to any other group, to promote their solution - admittedly often too conservative, i.e. reflecting the generally accepted state of affairs from a few decades ago - of a particular problem concerning the whole of society. (Of course, unfortunately not only the number of supporters but also economic and financial strength decide which group is more influential than others, however this does not apply only to Christians.)

>>I think the US is wrong in having a representative at the Vatican.<<
And I think they would not, were this the majority opinion in the US. This is also democracy, I suppose.

Dear George,

Where the United States decides to have diplomatic representation is not decided by a democratic vote of the people. We don't know whether a majority of the US population wants it or not. My feeling is that a US representative to the head of any religious body violates the First Amendment to the US Constitution.

The pope is the head of the Catholic Church. However, I see him as opposed to social justice. The human race like any other species cannot increase indefinitely. The resources of the planet are limited. Environmental problems cannot be solved without control of population growth. Education of women, access to contraception and abortion are all means to achieve this end. As far as I know the pope has no objection to education for women although the Catholic church is male dominated with a male clergy. The pope's position on birth control, condoms and abortion make him unfit to be a voice in achieving social justice which is incompatible with uncontrolled population growth. He also is a voice of intolerance. One example was his objection to letting Turkey join the European Union as he wished to preserve the Christian nature of Europe.

No one advocates that churches be told who they can and cannot marry. However, the pope does not want the state to recognise same sex marriages even if the marriages are civil and have nothing to do with the church. If it were up to him there would be no divorce.

The selection of a pope is an undemocratic process since he is elected by the cardinals who were chosen by previous popes. Of course Catholics may stay with their church for whatever reason they choose. However, I see no reason that the rest of us need give his medieval mumbojumbo any weight.

We agree that the secular state is not a moral guide. In my opinion neither is the pope.

George,

I apologise in advance for the length of this response, but there is just so much to be said.

<<That is fine, it is the same with me, except that I listen to other’s opinions, perspectives, in order to both refine and broaden my own perspective.>>

And I don’t?

One of the reasons I like to debate theists is because it helps me to refine precisely why I don’t believe.

But I am fundamentally coming from a sceptical standpoint, not from a position in which something is being asserted. Ultimately, my view, here, is one of scepticism. So until someone comes up with a convincing argument (whether or not they are trying to convince) regarding anything supernatural, the only thing I have to broaden is my understanding of what some others believe and why.

The above is just one of the many examples that demonstrate how theism and atheism cannot be equated. There are far more differences between the two than you've ever been willing to admit on OLO (as I have mentioned many times in the past when I pointed out the fact that theism and atheism are not just two equally opposing views). You err so many times because you treat the two as if they are on equal footing on both a practical and philosophical level, and fail to realise that the two require/justify very different responses to many situations because of these differences. I remember, in the past, so many of your sentences being in the form of, "I wouldn't [insert action here], just as I wouldn't expect an atheist to [insert action here]", in situations where the two cannot be compared in such a way.

Much of your discussion with David and Pericles was due to this fundamental misunderstanding and I think your starting of this thread was a result of it too.

Similarly, you said to david f, “Where we differ is the application of the adjective “respectable”: I can respect other world-views that differ from mine…” On the surface, this sounds virtuous and I’m sure it was meant to as well.

Continued…

…Continued

But respecting the views of those who disagree with an assertion of such monumental proportions is easy, I’d imagine, when one is on the philosophical back foot and well aware of it. To assert something that is not only unverifiable by its very nature, but simultaneously responsible for so much grief throughout history, would be humbling, to say the very least.

<<Without expecting answers to questions I pose through which I can prove myself right and them wrong in situations which admit other than just yes or no answers.>>

I’m not sure what you mean here, but if you’re suggesting that I’ve applied simplistic yes/no answers to ignore a large greyscale in which the answers to my questions may lie, then please cite an example. It is uncouth to suggest such things without providing examples of what you are talking about and from my observations, is only done by people who want create an air of uncertainty where there isn’t any.

<<If God is seen as represented by the Abrahamic religions, for a human to judge as irrational or immoral his actions or the way He revealed them to us is even more absurd than for a three years old son of an e.g. a university professor to judge his father’s professional activity or the appropriateness of the way he explains these to his son.>>

Not so.

I'm aware of this line of reasoning (I used to use it myself) and it is invalid. It is a form of the Special Pleading fallacy and by excusing God from our own moral standards only introduces the additional moral dilemma of a God who rules with a, “Do as I say, not as I do”, attitude.

Using your metaphor to demonstrate the problems in your line of reasoning... Why would the father bother explaining something to his child that would not only be incomprehensible to him, but could actually be misunderstood in a way that may prove detrimental to his ability to accept anything else his father said, or respect him?

Continued…

…Continued

A god would understand how it is that they needed to communicate with us whatever it is that they wanted to communicate, and would have the wisdom to know what it is that could not be communicated.

A far more rational explanation here is that they are simply stories and myths of ancient peoples. This is yet another difference between theism and atheism; atheism allows one to entertain such notions.

<<As to the latter, of course, the son can simply say, I don’t understand, and the benevolent father would not use coercion to make him “understand”. That is why we have also atheists.>>

Yes, but it’s not that myself and other atheists don’t understand the moral of the story; it’s that we have the good sense, and lack the credulity, to not overlook such a glaring problem just to take something from it.

<<This, of corse, is again a metaphor not an argument.>>

It may not be an argument as such, however, it is an attempt to reason and can therefore be critiqued - metaphor or not.

david f,

“The pope is the head of the Catholic Church. However, I see him as opposed to social justice. The human race like any other species cannot increase indefinitely. The resources of the planet are limited. Environmental problems cannot be solved without control of population growth. Education of women, access to contraception and abortion are all means to achieve this end. As far as I know the pope has no objection to education for women although the Catholic church is male dominated with a male clergy. The pope's position on birth control, condoms and abortion make him unfit to be a voice in achieving social justice which is incompatible with uncontrolled population growth. He also is a voice of intolerance.”

This is a good description of the inanity of the Catholic Church’s dogma which will, at some stage, be an unsupportable ruling if we are not there already. I too am waiting with baited breath for George to make an apologetic comment on this very pressing issue without obfuscation of any kind.

I would like George to answer the question of what will happen if the world follows this disastrous policy. How long will it before we are a hundred metres deep in humans everywhere?

This is the biggest blunder by far by the Catholic Church.

David

Dear david f,

Sorry again, for having brought the Pope into play. As I wrote, it was the atheist thinker Habermas, and his ideas on how a secular society should work that I thought were relevant to this thread. Nevertheless, let my say this:

I appreciate that you presented the more or less standard objections to this Pope as your personal view. They are certainly shared by many people, and partly shared by even more, including Christians. The topics you touch upon are much more complicated than I could explain - partly agreeing, partly disagreeing with you - in a few words even if I thought I was sufficiently knowledgeable which I am not. Much, though not all, can be explained by the fact that not only the Pope is old, but so is the institution he represents and leads, and much in the Church, and probably also Benedict’s thinking, “reflects the generally accepted state of affairs from a few decades ago” as I wrote before. Against some - not all - of these accusations he was defended also by the well-known Jewish attorney Dershowitz (http://frontpagemag.com/2010/alan-m-dershowitz/in-defense-of-the-pope/).

So please excuse me if I do not take your post sentence by sentence, and explain my personal view of it.

Maybe I should not have mentioned “social justice” since different people mean different things by that. Nevertheless, as I said, Habermas sees the Pope as an authority (on whatever in his eyes) worthy of not only to dialogue with but also to coauthor a book. Another atheist who coauthored a book with Ratzinger/Benedict is the Italian philosopher Marcello Pera (c.f. http://www.amazon.com/Without-Roots-Relativism-Christianity-ebook/dp/B009SAV4W6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358783749&sr=8-1&keywords=Pera+Marcello).

You, like many others, don’t share Habermas' and Pero's views of the Pope. Fair enough. Also not all Christians, not even all Catholics, have the same opinion about in what sense the Pope is or is not an authority. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>Where the United States decides to have diplomatic representation is not decided by a democratic vote of the people. We don't know whether a majority of the US population wants it or not.<<
I agree, therefore I finished my remark with “I suppose”. I suspect the majority doesn’t care one way or the other, at least the non-Catholics, since it does not hurt anybody. I don’t know of a strong popular pressure to severe the diplomatic relations. You might be better informed.

>>The selection of a pope is an undemocratic process<<
That is obvious, and a consequence of the Church being an institution many centuries old.

>> We agree that the secular state is not a moral guide. In my opinion neither is the pope.<<
It is hard for me to envisage how the state could be a moral guide for anybody in the same sense as the Pope is, or should be, for Catholics. The Pope is a moral quide neither for you nor for Habermas or Pero, although you obviously have different opinions about him.

The Pope is entitled to his recommendations on how the state or society should be run like anybody else. They are not binding for everybody and certainly he has no (“this worldly”) coercive powers to force it on anybody, not even Catholics.

George,

I find this generalised statement a bit more than a cop out.

“The Pope is entitled to his recommendations on how the state or society should be run like anybody else. They are not binding for everybody and certainly he has no (“this worldly”) coercive powers to force it on anybody, not even Catholics.”

You know doubt know of the quote attributed to Stan Lee that, “With great power comes great responsibility.” The Pope has great power over millions of people in Africa, South America, the Philippines, and parts of Asia. His words are ‘gospel’ in many parts of those countries and the suffering is immense because of them.

It’s true that Western democracies are less likely to follow his dictates but ever there his abysmal take on many social issues is negatively influential. He is not entitled to his recommendations, such a nice word when the people to whom I refer see them as commands and not recommendations.

The Pope has great power but the responsibility part doesn't exist for the temporal world. His fantasy world and reality are clashing and are not reconcilable. I wouldn't class him as just an eccentric ‘old man’; he is a definable menace to people and planet. It would be pointless in having to explain that.

David

AJ Philips,

I read your three posts very carefully. I noticed especially the places where you are personal, to use a mild word:

“than you've ever been willing to admit”, “You err so many times”, “(you) fail to realise”, “many of your sentences being in the form of”, “your staring of this thread was a result of”, “if you are suggesting that”, “it is uncouth to suggest such things”, “ to demonstrate the problems in your line of reasoning”, etc.

Please do not expect me to answer in the same tone, neither to react in any rational way to your objections because, among other things (if you can excuse me sarcasm), I “err so many times”, and have “problems in my line of reasoning”. Remember, we have been through a similar marathon of arguments and counter-arguments once already, and it lead to nowhere.

You certainly will not get me to accuse you of faulty reasoning, unfair intentions or express other personal insinuations. Nevertheless, I appreciate that you seem to want me to confirm you in your world-view. However, as I wrote before, you have to find those confirmations for yourself. The choice of a personal world-view depends on many things, and it cannot be arrived at purely through reasoning, faulty or not, although it obviously should not go against reason. Beecause, as Pascal put it, "the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing".

David (of the AFoA),

The Pope either speaks to the world at large, in which case he cannot command, only recommend, or to his fellow Catholics, even then there is a difference whether he “commands” or rather instructs Catholic bishops, the clergy or speaks to the laity. As for the latter, there is still something called freedom of conscience. Yes, there are many who see his instructions as moral norms that not only inform but form, create, personal consciences and decision to act or not to act. You would have to quote him explicitly, if you want me to be more concrete.

There is no doubt a problem with Catholics, including bishops and clergy, who apply rigidly the unfortunate encyclical of Paul VI about contraception, especially in African situations that you obviously had in mind. As far as this Pope’s expressed views about condoms are concerned, see my http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11303#191173 .

Otherwise, I can just refer to my post to david f concerning different opinions about this Pope even among educated atheists. You can check e.g. Google to see that there is a great variety of opinions about the views expressed by the Pope on many topics; positive as well as negative, including those that coincide with yours, and in-between. And it is good so.

Let me repeat that this is a different can of worms that I opened unintentionally. The thread was suppoosed to be about belief or unbelief in God and afterlife and whether both "world-view orientations" could coexist (in a sense to be determined) in an open secular society .

George,

Threads have a way of diverging. A greater picture can develop with an expanded view of any topic.

It is not just Africa and condoms where the Pope stands condemned of misuse of power via doctrinal influence. But, I see it would be to no avail to nudge you off the fence about it. I say that light-heartedly by the way…kinda. I’m willing to let you sit there on this one.

Maybe you can head me in the direction of the “educated atheists” who agree with the Pope and to what they actually agree about. Don’t tell me to Google it thanks. I know and know of most of the “educated atheists” and none have ever expressed an opinion of agreement on substantial misgivings supported by the Pope. I’m really looking forward to reading the views of these “educated atheists” of which you speak and what they have to say.

The closest I have seen this was with Ayaan Hirsi Ali who suggested that Muslims would be better off converting to Christianity. Not for the god aspect but because Christianity has already been tamed by civilised society and is not as threatening as can be Islam to others.

David

Dear George,

Getting back to your original question of proselytising. As a former resident of a communist country you have been forced to listen to the official Marxist line and have been expected to adhere to it. I get the idea that you didn’t enjoy the experience. When the experience is forced on a victim of a beast of pray of any persuasion it can be an ugly thing. It is especially ugly when backed by the power of the state.

It is going on in Australia at this time in the public schools. Religious instruction as currently carried on in Queensland public schools is dominated by ill-trained volunteers belonging to various fundamentalist Christian sects. Sometimes children are included ignoring parental wishes. Children not participating may be made to feel excluded, bullied, given rubbish duties or left alone in libraries. The Queensland Education Act of 1875 specified that education be free, compulsory and secular. In 1910 the state government removed the word, secular, from the act following a referendum inspired by the Bible Society of Qld.

At the Separation of Church and State Conference of 13-14 October 2012 a high school teacher from a large urban state school in south-east Queensland claimed that creationism is being taught as science to 11th and 12th year biology students. The speaker read from one of the prescribed texts, Case: the Case against Evolution, the Case for Creation, (1984):

"The controversy over creation and evolution then is really a battle between two religions. You must choose the chance, randomness, no-God evolutionary philosophy which provides the basis for the religion of humanism in which ‘anything goes’: homosexuality, nudity, abortion, incest, etc. cannot be evil, for evil does not exist. Or you must choose the absolutes of the Creator God who made everything and therefore has the authority to choose what is right or wrong for His creation. The choice, therefore, is between the religion of Christianity with the basis of its Gospel in a literal creation, or the religion of humanism with its basis of evolution."

continued

continued

Teachers who object to teaching the fundamentalist babble may not be teaching biology next semester.

Ron Williams, a Toowoomba parent, found the ubiquitous chaplaincy in the schools his children went to disturbing so he bravely went to court contending that commonwealth funding for the chaplaincy program was a violation of Australian law. Successive federal governments have committed nearly a half billion dollars toward the program. From the Scripture Union website: SU QLD and School Chaplaincy ACT requires that the successful candidate agrees to and operates under one or both of the creeds of the Christian Church (Apostles’ Creed and/or Nicene Creed).

Chaplains come cheaper than trained counselors and are not supposed to be counselors. However, they not only act as counselors but some also proselytize their fundamentalist faith even though they are not supposed to. Student interaction with the chaplains are supposedly voluntary, but one parent said, “It’s not voluntary if the chaplain is the groundsman, the teacher’s aide and says prayers on assembly! It’s a logistical nightmare to withdraw my child from assembly, speech nights and all the activities in which the chaplain’s involved!”

http://www.highcourtchallenge.com/ tells about Ron Williams’ court challenge to commonwealth funding for the chaplaincy program.
In Charlemagne’s realm pagan Gauls were given the choice of Christianity or decapitation. Equivalent choices occurred in much of Christendom.

When people ask to hear about the worldview of some belief system or philosopher there is nothing wrong in telling them. There is also nothing wrong in telling of one’s worldview if the recipient of the information has no obligation to remain and listen.

However, when there is compulsion involved it is a violation of human dignity and freedom.

My vision of a secular state is that it must not impinge on human dignity and freedom. However, religious fundamentalists contend that teaching children about the accepted scientific thought of the day is an impingement of their dignity and freedom as such teaching is incompatible with Biblical or Koranic literalism. The conflict continues.

David (of the AFoA),

>>Maybe you can head me in the direction of the “educated atheists” who agree with the Pope and to what they actually agree about.<<

I never said the atheist thinkers, I mentioned in my posts to david f, agreed with the Pope, although they must have found a common ground otherwise they would not have coauthored a book with him.

In those posts I was referring to two philosophers-atheists. One is Pera - http://www.amazon.com/Without-Roots-Relativism-Christianity-ebook/dp/B009SAV4W6/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1358783749&sr=8-1&keywords=Pera+Marcello - whom I know nothing about, except what you can read in Wikipedia.

The other is the sociologist and philosopher Jürgen Habermas, who coined the term “legitimation crisis” (c.f. http://www.amazon.com/Legitimation-Crisis-Juergen-Habermas/dp/0807015210). I have known of him for years while still in Melbourne, as one of the prominent German philosophers. Philosophy of science, where I feel somewhat more at home than in sociology, was not his field. Only later, when already in Germany, did I find out that he exchanged views with Ratzinger on matters of faith and reason http://www.amazon.com/Awareness-What-Missing-Reason-Post-secular/dp/0745647219/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358872597&sr=1-7&keywords=habermas as well as how the secular society should function http://www.amazon.com/Dialectics-Secularization-Reason-Religion/dp/1586171666/ref=sr_1_10?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358872597&sr=1-10&keywords=habermas.

Habermas is a well known and respected name in contemporary German philosophy and Germany in geberal. I am not going to comb those books to see where the two authors agree and where they disagree. Still, one such comparison might be in http://chiesa.espresso.repubblica.iet/articolo/125081?eng=y, although, I suppose, not from a source you would normally consult. Perhaps Habermas and the Pope found each other because they both “think in German”.

So I saved you searching in Google or amazon.com, hopefully to your satisfaction.

Dear david f,

First of all, I do not like the word proselytize because of its many negative connotations.

Thanks for the information about the situation in Queensland. (I did not understand the relevance of Charlemagne’s reign). I have to admit I spent my time in Australia in Melbourne, and did not know much about Joh Bjelke-Petersen’s - as it was then - Queensland. From here, in Germany, “the controversy over creation and evolution” is mostly seen as an American - excuse me - absurdity.

You quote something from 1984, and then say that teachers who object to teaching (something you do not describe, but obviously not belonging to science) may not be teaching biology in 2013. Is this really the contemporary situation? Are children of atheist parents really actively proselytized into becoming Christian? Are children of Christian parents actively encouraged not to believe in God on the grounds that it clashes with science?. The emphasis in both cases is on “actively”, because in my opinion a child is necessarily influenced by the popular teacher’s personal beliefs or unbeliefs (“and what do YOU think Mr or Mrs Smith?”), ethnic background, their preferences for this or that music, sporting clubs, etc.

I know from this OLO that there is a problem with the funding, or even just presence, of (Christian only) chaplains at public schools. If they are there to act as counselors for every child, they ought to have qualifications recognised by state authorities. Like any other counselor, or psychotherapist as they are called here. If I have to visit a dentist, I want him to be qualified as a dentist and I do not care about his religion. It is different with the psychotherapist, where professional qualification is a must but also his/her world-view orientation is relevant. The more so if the “customers” are children.

These are just general reactions. From what you write it indeed looks like the evangelical or fundamentalist Christians have an undue influence in Queensland.

>>However, when there is compulsion involved it is a violation of human dignity and freedom.<<
I absolutely agree.

George,

You are confusing yourself. Here is how this part of the conversation began.

You said, “…Otherwise, I can just refer to my post to david f concerning different opinions about this Pope even among educated atheists.”

To which I replied, “none (atheist) have ever expressed an opinion of agreement on substantial misgivings supported by the Pope.”

Then, at the beginning of your last reply, you strangely said as it was not mentioned by me, “I never said the atheist thinkers,” I'm unsure why you said that.

Anyhow, the support from atheists you intimate exists is from two people, Marcello Pera, Juergen Habermas with your last link not working.

Marcello Pera had a book, ‘Why We Must Call Ourselves Christians’ prefaced by Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger. Without using any exaggeration, such a view amongst 99.9% of atheists would be classed as nonsense. It’s great how any idea is available on the internet no matter how bizarre.

Leaving Pera aside and going on to Habermas, here is an overview of his ideas and they actually reflect very closely the thoughts of many atheists.

“Habermas argues that in order to engage in this dialogue, two conditions must be met: religion must accept the authority of secular reason as the fallible results of the sciences and the universalistic egalitarianism in law and morality; and conversely, secular reason must not set itself up as the judge concerning truths of faith. This argument was developed in part as a reaction to the conception of the relation between faith and reason formulated by Pope Benedict XVI in his 2006 Regensburg address.”

http://www.amazon.com/Awareness-What-Missing-Reason-Post-secular/dp/0745647219/ref=sr_1_7?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1358872597&sr=1-7&keywords=habermas

These ‘two’ opinions, Pera’s being way over the top and Habermas’ which reflects an atheist view on a secular state in part do not answer my criticism that, “none (atheist) have ever expressed an opinion of agreement on substantial misgivings supported by the Pope.”

David

George, that is quite bizarre.

>>First of all, I do not like the word proselytize because of its many negative connotations.<<

But... but...

Your opening post says this:

>>Do our atheist friends here agree that not only those of the “secular community” but also of other, religious, persuasions should not be fearful of seeming to proselytize?<<

And the title of the entire thread is:

"Being fearful of seeming to proselytize".

Now you tell us that you are unhappy with the terminology that has been key to the entire discussion.

That is like starting a thread on discrimination, then after 157 responses, tell people that you are uncomfortable with the word "discrimination"

No wonder then, that the arguments on this thread have been so difficult to make sense of.

David (of the AFoA),

I thought you asked sincerely for information, not to start a ping-pong of opinions:

>>Maybe you can head me in the direction of the “educated atheists” who agree with the Pope and to what they actually agree about.<<

I obliged, and I now regret having wasted my and your time. Anyhow, relax, nobody wants to convert you, not even to change your opinion about the Pope or Habermas' reasons to dialogue with him.

Pericles,

You have a point here. My original paragraph was something like:

First of all, I do not like the word proselytize because of its many negative connotations. However, Susan Jacoby, the atheist author of the article, used it, and it did not look like she meant it to be negative. My point then was to use the term in exactly the same sense as she, see also http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=5580#153188.

I removed the second and third sentences in order not to exceed the 350 words. Probably I should not have.

George,

I am very relaxed but I admit to being jumpy when logical progression is not followed. This can create a situation where endless or circular argument can be the outcome.

I think we have arrived at a place on this particular matter where clarity is far greater than it first was.

David

Dear George,

Correct me if wrong. Christianity is a religion that centres around Jesus, his life, lessons, passion and resurrection. Most Christians seem to lack knowledge of their history. They are centred in the Bible or what the clergy tells them and ignore most of what has happened since or even the context of what happened in the beginning. Crucifixion was a common Roman form of execution, and many died on the cross. The others disappear from what history most Christians know. The Orthodox are aware of the schism that separated them from Catholicism. Protestants are aware of the Reformation but may think that Christianity was a seamless whole before then.

I feel that many Christians are ignorant of history in general and their own history in particular. Some of the clergy are very aware and knowledgeable. However, this knowledge usually does not permeate to their flock. Several years ago I was talking to a Lutheran pastor, and I was taken aback to find him so knowledgeable about the questionable elements in Christianity. He told me of the long discussions they had on these matters at St. Olaf’s seminary. I asked him if he had discussed these matters with his flock. He told me he would not want to disturb their simple faith. I feel that is true of much of Christianity. God not wanting Adam and Eve to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge is a metaphor for the general Christian attitude toward questioning and knowledge among the laity.

Richard Fletcher’s “The Conversion of Europe from Paganism to Christianity: 371-1386” tells how Europe became Christian. In 371 Emperor Theodosius made Christianity the official religion of the Empire and started persecuting and executing those who clung to their faiths. With the exception of Ireland all the other countries were Christianised by violence. Lithuania was an island of tolerance where people of all beliefs including Christians could believe what they wished and live in peace. A series of crusades against Lithuania resulted in the official adoption of Christianity in 1386.

Charlemagne typifies a common Christian proselytizing strategy.

Continue

Continued

It is the teacher’s testimony that in some Queensland schools creationism is taught as valid in science classes. I cannot say how prevalent this is. It has been going on for a while. In 1983 Queensland Education Minister Lin Powell stated that creationism and evolution should be given equal time.

The teacher explained that all secondary schools are required to submit a Biology Work Program to the Queensland Studies Austhority (QSA) setting out how the school plans to teach the required biology syllabus. A one-word reference to creationism in the school’s either escaped QSA’s notice or was considered inconsequential. The program was approved.

The present Queensland government is heavily infiltrated with the fundamentalist Scripture Union which provides the chaplains. Tim Mander former head of Scripture Union Queensland is now Minister for Housing and Public Works. Mander softpedals his connection with SU and mentions his work as a football referee if asked about himself
.
Proselytising by chaplains is not supposed to be done, but the composition of the present state precludes an investigation of their activities. One of the chief causes of teen suicide is uncertain sexual identity and the accompanying teasing, harassment and bullying. A SU chaplain would probably be condemnatory and would add to the stress.

I am tremendously interested in Christian history rather than its doctrines. How did it mange to take over so much of the world? The Jesus figure just seems a more recent version of pagan legends of a redeemer born of a virgin and put to death. Jesus is an analogue of Adonis, Mithra and Apollo. Although it has been forced on many people their descendents might be quite attached to Christianity. The Marranos were Jews who were forced to adopt Christianity. Two of their descendents were Spinoza and Montaigne. Spinoza came to reject all historical religions and provided a rationale for the separation of church and state. Montaigne was a Catholic humanist and sceptic. Both were quite influential.

Dear david f,

Thanks for the interesting post; for instance I never heard before about the Marranos.

>>Most Christians seem to lack knowledge of their history.<< and again
>>I feel that many Christians are ignorant of history in general and their own history in particular. <<

I think these assertions could be applied to any larger group of people. For instance, my week point as a mathematician was that I was not much knowledgeable of, and interested in, the history of mathematics. Today certainly a majority of “educated” Christians will be aware that many bad things were perpetrated in the name of Christianity, and/or by those who called themselves Christians. As for historians, some see the positive aspects of Christianity prevailing over the negative ones, some see it the other way around. We have been through this already.

A priest is not so much an expert on what an educated Christian should believe as on how to present the basic tenets of the faith to his congregation. Something like a math teacher is more a (mathematical) pedagogue than a professional mathematician.

>>I asked him if he had discussed these matters with his flock. He told me he would not want to disturb their simple faith.<<
I like to compare this to discussing the working of a TV set with the “old lady” (who just wants to know how to make it work for her), a TV technician, who has to know much more but doesn’t have to know what are Maxwell’s equations, and a professor of electronics.

Christianity is one of a number of religions humanity has passed, and is still passing, through. Usually, authors who consider them - anthropologists, sociologists, etc - either a priori dismiss any religion as superstition (or some other derogatory term), or write from an a priori position that assumes the existence of the (Abrahamic) God. So I was pleasantly surprised to come across Rodney Stark’s “Discovering God” (HarperOne, 2008), which states explicitly: (ctd)

(ctd)
“This book can be read either as a study of the evolution of human IMAGES of God, or as the evolution of the human CAPACITY TO COMPREHEND God. The same theoretical model suits either interpretation.” (I had to capitalize parts that are italicized in the book.)

I read (the Kindle edition) cover to cover. In particular, Stark is critical of Durkheim’s contention that “rites and rituals are the fundamental stuff of religion”, and instead stresses that “variations on how God or Gods are conceived is the crucial difference among faiths and cultures”. Also the following I found attractive:

“(B)oth biological and cultural evolution seem to be greatly shaped by the principle of natural selection or survival of the fittest, which refers to the tendency for better-adapted organisms or cultural elements to prevail over the less well-adapted. Keep in mind that I am not referring to the evolution of new species, but to natural selection WITHIN the “species” known as human cultures or, to even more greatly restrict the term, I am concerned with natural selection among variations within the “species” called religion.”

>>The Jesus figure just seems a more recent version of pagan legends of a redeemer born of a virgin and put to death. Jesus is an analogue of Adonis, Mithra and Apollo.<<

In view of the above about cultural evolution, this is as world-shattering for me as the discovery that I share 95% of my DNA with a chimpanzee. Christians - except for literalists - have learned to accept that man was not created in one go as described in Genesis, so (Jews and) Christians should not be surprised that what they see as God’s self-revelation was also subject to an evolutionary process

George,

I’m sorry if you feel that I get too personal. I don’t see anything wrong with what you consider to be ‘getting personal’. So long as it remains relevant, is not abusive and is not used as a diversionary tactic, I can only see how it could be a good thing. Take it as constructive criticism, if you will.

<<You certainly will not get me to accuse you of faulty reasoning…>>

“Accuse” is the wrong word. It has very negative connotations. A more accurate term would be “pointing out”.

But as someone who cares about having as many true beliefs as possible (and is, therefore, always out to challenge their way of thinking by searching for arguments to the contrary), I find this a disappointment. If my reasoning has flaws in any way, then I want to know about it; I want that pointed out to me. 

<<You certainly will not get me to accuse you of … unfair intentions or express other personal insinuations.>>

There is nothing wrong with doing this, so long as the criticism is constructive and you can back your claims. This is another reason why “accuse” is the wrong word to use here. It makes it sound as though I never progressed past the initial point of doing the accusing by providing reasoning to support my "accusations".

“Insinuations” is the wrong word, too, as I have been very upfront with everything that I have pointed out and have not implied anything - let alone anything in a nasty way.

Now THESE have been insinuations as they imply that my intentions have not been pure.

<<The choice of a personal world-view depends on many things, and it cannot be arrived at purely through reasoning, faulty or not, although it obviously should not go against reason.>>

Well, we’re more just talking religious beliefs here (or the lack thereof), not entire worldviews, but that's true. If our beliefs stand the test of reason, then thats the main thing; how we arrived at them is secondary - albeit a close second.

Continued...

...Continued

What you've said above goes against this somewhat, though...

<<…as Pascal put it, "the heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing".>>

...Which implies that the heart has access to something that reason simply cannot touch. 

The problem with what Pascal said, however, is the heart doesn’t know either - making it effectively blind - and this is why it tends to fail us more often than not.

Reason helps us more accurately determine what is true and what is not, just as it helps us more reliably determine what we should and should not do.

It all comes back to whether or not one actually cares about the truth of their beliefs.

 <<In view of the above about cultural evolution, this is as world-shattering for me as the discovery that I share 95% of my DNA with a chimpanzee. Christians - except for literalists - have learned to accept that man was not created in one go as described in Genesis, so (Jews and) Christians should not be surprised that what they see as God’s self-revelation was also subject to an evolutionary process>>

Can we take it, then, that you don't necessarily think the story of Jesus actually happened? Or do you think that they all probably happened? 

AJ Philips,

If I tried to react to your reasoning I would probably, again “disappoint you”, “use wrong words”, or do other things you “pointed out” (OK, not accused) to me in your previous posts.

One last attempt: Frank Little, the former Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, used to answer persistent questioners (on matters of morals, but I think it can be applied also to more general questions about “truth”): “If you cannot understand any other answer only yes or no, then the answer must be YES full stop. (Or NO, whichever applies better to the question asked and/or makes you happier).

There are many questions, e.g. in theoretical physics and even more so in metaphysics and theology, that cannot be answered in the same way to satisfy both the layman/laywoman - religious or not, educated or not - as well as the professional physicist or philosopher respectively. I tried to illustrate the latter case in my article http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=11303#191173.

George,

Sorry about the delay in reply but the weather hasn't been the best here in Australia, as you may have heard.

<<One last attempt: Frank Little, the former Catholic Archbishop of Melbourne, used to answer persistent questioners (on matters of morals, but I think it can be applied also to more general questions about “truth”): “If you cannot understand any other answer only yes or no, then the answer must be YES full stop. (Or NO, whichever applies better to the question asked and/or makes you happier).>>

I'm not sure what the point is that you're trying to illustrate here. I don’t agree with Frank Little for starters. Whether or not one understands anything other than straight yes or no answers has no bearing on what the actual answer is.

Would he say this sarcastically perhaps, or are you suggesting - in a round-about way - that I only understand yes/no answers? If the latter is true, then I would point out that there is a difference between being able to see the shades of grey and proffering vague suggestions that only serve to obscure the issue, rather than achieve any further clarity - as should be the goal of answers.

And your, "One last time", makes it sound like I'm just not “getting” the fact that, to you, not all answers to theological questions are easy or can be expressed in layman's terms - as can be the case with metaphysics and theoretical physics - despite your repeated attempts to explain that.

Yes, I have always understood that. But by thinking in such a way, while simultaneously labelling yourself a "Christian", let alone a Catholic one, specifically, you are having your cake and eating it too.

To be happy to accept such a specific label, tied to such a specific doctrine, only to retreat to some vague and obscure ideas - that somewhat resemble theology - when the questions become too hard displays a lack of courage to accept the more rational answers and/or a desire to desperately avoid them at all costs.

Continued…

…Continued

This is how theology differs to theoretical physics and metaphysics, and it’s detrimental to your analogy. With theoretical physics and metaphysics, concluding that the presupposition (in theology’s case, God) is non-existent to begin with isn’t an alternative - let alone a more rational one.

While it’s true that some things don’t have simple answers, to take a story like the binding of Isaac, for example, and then brush-off its irreconcilability with an omnibenevolent god using the excuse that our ability to understand such things just mustn't be adequate (when we wouldn’t apply that line of reasoning to anything else), or to merely temporise by passing it off as a challenge (knowing full well that you'll never have an answer and nor will anyone else, and all while refusing to entertain the simpler and more rational possibilities), does not come across as honest inquiry - to put it mildly.

AJ Philips,

>>But by thinking in such a way, while simultaneously labelling yourself a "Christian", let alone a Catholic one, specifically, you are having your cake and eating it too.<<

That is a standard accusation from fundamentalists/literalists from both sides of the theist-atheist divide, that I have become used to.

>>while refusing to entertain the simpler and more rational possibilities), does not come across as honest inquiry - to put it mildly.<<

As I already wrote, I am not going to reciprocate in similar terms.

Neither am I going to contradict you: as there is no point in telling e.g. runner not to act as a self-appointed arbiter of morality, so is there no point in continuing this exchange of opinions with you if you keep on seeing yourself as an arbiter of rationality.

I can just keep on repeating that I am not trying to convert you, or to deny you the interpretation of the Scripture, that you find meaningful for your life.

So what I called “One last attempt” in my previous post, should have been called “The last attempt”.

George,

You’re developing a tone of anger in your responses and I’m not sure why.

<<That is a standard accusation from fundamentalists/literalists from both sides of the theist-atheist divide, that I have become used to.>>

You cannot, by definition, have a fundamentalist (let alone a literalist) atheist, and nor is there even an equivalent - which speaks volumes for atheism, in my opinion. This is an example of how you incorrectly equate theism and atheism.

If you could explain to me why this accusation is unfair/incorrect, then I’ll gladly retract it and apologise. As it stands now, though, all you seem to have done is insinuate that I am some sort of fundamentalist. However, I believe I had adequately justified my claim in my last post.

Anyway, ultimately, all I was trying to point out was the fact that the questions I posed were still fair and relevant, and that I wasn’t just being a little “slow”. It was not supposed to be an attempt to belittle, as the tone in your response above seems to imply.

<<As I already wrote, I am not going to reciprocate in similar terms.>>

Yes, I hadn’t forgotten about that; I don’t think I’ve ever asked you to either. Surely an articulate person like yourself could still find a way to respond, though. The irony here, however, is that you say this - seemly under the impression that doing so is rude - but are still happy insinuate some rather unkind things.

Continued…

…Continued

<<Neither am I going to contradict you: as there is no point in telling e.g. runner not to act as a self-appointed arbiter of morality, so is there no point in continuing this exchange of opinions with you if you keep on seeing yourself as an arbiter of rationality.>>

The difference (as well as the irony) being, of course, the fact that if you were to successfully contradict me, I would accept that I was wrong and acknowledge that (i.e. my idea of what's rational actually being rational, not about being an arbiter - although I’m sure one could easily confuse the two, initially, if what they hear proves a problem for their long-held beliefs).

Your implication here is unfair as I have never demonstrated otherwise and nor have you ever tried to see what the result would be. Not beyond the point we’re at now, at least. We get so tantalisingly close and then you start slinging mud.

It’s as disappointing as it is frustrating.

Frustrating because this is the point at which most theists will simply state they just have faith or that they believe, because they believe, because they believe. You, on the other hand, hint at something more that you just won’t let me in on in the fear that it may be perceived as an attempt to convert…

<<I can just keep on repeating that I am not trying to convert you, or to deny you the interpretation of the Scripture, that you find meaningful for your life.>>

I understand that. You’ve said that a few times in the past (though I have never expressed such a fear). I can only assure you that I won’t take it that way.

AJ Philips,

>and then you start slinging mud<<

If this is how you see my posts, I have just stopped doing that. So should you.