Print
Man and God
by The Times
Be sure to check out the comments on the Times website.
Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3090488.ece
How should faith respond to the onslaught of atheism?
It has been a good year for atheists. Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion has sold more than a million copies, and between April and June was Britain's fourth best-selling title, beaten only by two Harry Potter books and Gordon Ramsay. Christopher Hitchens, whose God is Not Great also excoriates religion as poison, has been given free rein on television and in debating halls. The success of the filmThe Golden Compass has provoked anguish among Christians over what is perceived as the atheist message at the heart of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Authors such as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have found that atheism sells on both sides of the Atlantic. Among both Christians and Muslims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's impassioned denunciation of the restrictions of Islam in Somalia have stirred sympathy as well as anger. And the new leader of the Liberal Democratic Party has admitted something unsayable only a decade or two ago: that he does not believe in God.
Not since Victorian times has there been such an intense and sustained debate about religious belief. It has been a curiously bad-tempered argument: the books that have spearheaded the militant new atheism have not sought to persuade, reach out or reason. Instead, in the name of reason, they have heaped scorn and ridicule on those stupid enough to believe the myths and the obscurantist cosmology of religion. Believers, Dawkins asserts, are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed". The atheists have characterised all religions by their most extremist exponents – the fundamentalists and the literalists, the holy warriors and the narrow-minded zealots – and denounced them as the bringers of war and suffering, the dividers and the oppressors, the antithesis of civilisation and the Enlightenment.
The argument has become highly political. Much of the animus driving the prophets of godlessness is a hatred of the American Christian Right and a fear of its power or a disgust with the terrorism and repression of militant Islamism. Many believers as well as agnostics share that disgust, swelling the atheist camp and magnifying its voice. But as faith issues have emerged at the centre of British and global politics, what was once a tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views, has become a vicious dogfight. Dawkins claims that religion, because of its irrationality, can lead to extreme violence; ergo, faith instruction to the young is worse than paedophile abuse.
How should believers respond to this on-slaught? For some, the immediate reaction has been embattled outrage. Donning the shining armour of belief, they have sought to smash down the atheists' contentions, one by one. Science, they point out correctly, does not have a monopoly on progress, nor religion on backwardness. Were not the two greatest monsters of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, both driven by what they believed a "scientific" ideology: the purging of "healthy" races from dangerous impurities, in Hitler's case, or Stalin's violent attempt to reconstruct society according to a flawed understanding of genetics? Defenders of the faith have also accused the atheists of the same fundamentalism that they impugn to their enemies: a dogmatic refusal to admit that "progress" has often been the achievement of profoundly religious people – including the atheists' iconic Isaac Newton – who have been pioneers in science, democratic idealism and human rights.
There has also, however, been a more thoughtful and useful response, which admits the force of many of the atheists' arguments and asks whether faith has been too arrogant or believers too naively narrow in their convictions. Among Christians, there is no doubt that confusion and disillusion are causing considerable anguish.
Whether it is on the issue of Biblical authority, human sexuality, church democracy or evangelical absolutism, almost all churches in Britain, and indeed beyond, have been riven by uncertainty. For some, the instinct has been to deny division, suppress debate and corral the faithful behind the stockade of religious orthodoxy. It is this very division and doubt, however, that ought to be a strength to underpin faith. For doubt admits the viability of other views, and that is the basis of wisdom and tolerance. Faith has to accommodate to the world around – to the evils, the uncertainties, the depths of human misery. Totalitarianism can be as much a danger to faith as it can be to secular society.
This, surely, is where the new militant atheism is wrong. It is totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness. It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics. Above all, an ideology – for atheism is an ideology – that cannot see its own scientific limitation cannot claim to be scientific. Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject isThe Book of British Birds". Similarly, a claim to know what Einstein admitted was the unknowable about the existence of the universe cannot be made by anyone who is himself a human and therefore part of that universe.
The spiritual dimension goes far beyond mere awe at the sublime, whether it be inspired by nature, beauty, music or human passion – something any sentient atheist can, and will, admit to. Faith admits to both doubt and unknowingness. It is not a provable dimension. But it is one of extraordinary power and potential. Symbolically, it is renewed each Christmas, with reverence and humility. This is the fact we celebrate tomorrow.
Reposted from:
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/leading_article/article3090488.ece
How should faith respond to the onslaught of atheism?
It has been a good year for atheists. Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion has sold more than a million copies, and between April and June was Britain's fourth best-selling title, beaten only by two Harry Potter books and Gordon Ramsay. Christopher Hitchens, whose God is Not Great also excoriates religion as poison, has been given free rein on television and in debating halls. The success of the filmThe Golden Compass has provoked anguish among Christians over what is perceived as the atheist message at the heart of Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials. Authors such as Sam Harris and Daniel Dennett have found that atheism sells on both sides of the Atlantic. Among both Christians and Muslims, Ayaan Hirsi Ali's impassioned denunciation of the restrictions of Islam in Somalia have stirred sympathy as well as anger. And the new leader of the Liberal Democratic Party has admitted something unsayable only a decade or two ago: that he does not believe in God.
Not since Victorian times has there been such an intense and sustained debate about religious belief. It has been a curiously bad-tempered argument: the books that have spearheaded the militant new atheism have not sought to persuade, reach out or reason. Instead, in the name of reason, they have heaped scorn and ridicule on those stupid enough to believe the myths and the obscurantist cosmology of religion. Believers, Dawkins asserts, are "malevolent... vicious, sado-masochistic and repellent... dodgy, perniciously delusional... sanctimoniously hypocritical... cockeyed". The atheists have characterised all religions by their most extremist exponents – the fundamentalists and the literalists, the holy warriors and the narrow-minded zealots – and denounced them as the bringers of war and suffering, the dividers and the oppressors, the antithesis of civilisation and the Enlightenment.
The argument has become highly political. Much of the animus driving the prophets of godlessness is a hatred of the American Christian Right and a fear of its power or a disgust with the terrorism and repression of militant Islamism. Many believers as well as agnostics share that disgust, swelling the atheist camp and magnifying its voice. But as faith issues have emerged at the centre of British and global politics, what was once a tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views, has become a vicious dogfight. Dawkins claims that religion, because of its irrationality, can lead to extreme violence; ergo, faith instruction to the young is worse than paedophile abuse.
How should believers respond to this on-slaught? For some, the immediate reaction has been embattled outrage. Donning the shining armour of belief, they have sought to smash down the atheists' contentions, one by one. Science, they point out correctly, does not have a monopoly on progress, nor religion on backwardness. Were not the two greatest monsters of the 20th century, Hitler and Stalin, both driven by what they believed a "scientific" ideology: the purging of "healthy" races from dangerous impurities, in Hitler's case, or Stalin's violent attempt to reconstruct society according to a flawed understanding of genetics? Defenders of the faith have also accused the atheists of the same fundamentalism that they impugn to their enemies: a dogmatic refusal to admit that "progress" has often been the achievement of profoundly religious people – including the atheists' iconic Isaac Newton – who have been pioneers in science, democratic idealism and human rights.
There has also, however, been a more thoughtful and useful response, which admits the force of many of the atheists' arguments and asks whether faith has been too arrogant or believers too naively narrow in their convictions. Among Christians, there is no doubt that confusion and disillusion are causing considerable anguish.
Whether it is on the issue of Biblical authority, human sexuality, church democracy or evangelical absolutism, almost all churches in Britain, and indeed beyond, have been riven by uncertainty. For some, the instinct has been to deny division, suppress debate and corral the faithful behind the stockade of religious orthodoxy. It is this very division and doubt, however, that ought to be a strength to underpin faith. For doubt admits the viability of other views, and that is the basis of wisdom and tolerance. Faith has to accommodate to the world around – to the evils, the uncertainties, the depths of human misery. Totalitarianism can be as much a danger to faith as it can be to secular society.
This, surely, is where the new militant atheism is wrong. It is totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness. It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics. Above all, an ideology – for atheism is an ideology – that cannot see its own scientific limitation cannot claim to be scientific. Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject isThe Book of British Birds". Similarly, a claim to know what Einstein admitted was the unknowable about the existence of the universe cannot be made by anyone who is himself a human and therefore part of that universe.
The spiritual dimension goes far beyond mere awe at the sublime, whether it be inspired by nature, beauty, music or human passion – something any sentient atheist can, and will, admit to. Faith admits to both doubt and unknowingness. It is not a provable dimension. But it is one of extraordinary power and potential. Symbolically, it is renewed each Christmas, with reverence and humility. This is the fact we celebrate tomorrow.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Tuesday, December 25, 2007 | PermalinkComments 51 - 100 of 144 |
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers52. Comment #103408 by BigC on December 25, 2007 at 1:21 pm
That comments about some of this article bordering on libel are spot on. Particularly:"Dawkins claims that religion, because of its irrationality, can lead to extreme violence; ergo, faith instruction to the young is worse than paedophile abuse".
He has read: "religious indoctrination is a form of child abuse" and turned it into "faith instruction is worse than paedophelia".
I find it hilarious that people always have to reinterpret what RD says before arguing against it, because they know if thy try to argue against him without skewing his words they have no case.
The old "militant atheist" phrase had reappeared again as well. That's just plain lazy. Using a phrase you've heard somewhere when this subject has been discussed without even stopping to think about what it actually means.
Other Comments by BigC
53. Comment #103409 by FightingFalcon on December 25, 2007 at 1:23 pm
Paula - religious discrimination is illegal in the US but trust me, your job can be made a living Hell if you come out as an Atheist. There are also always ways around discriminating based on religion. You can always fire someone for cost cutting, productivity, etc. In my job, I have two bosses that are extremely religious. I would never in a million years tell them that I'm an Atheist because I would honestly be afraid of getting a bad performance report. My boss has basically told me that homosexuals have no place in the military (they're allowed to serve so long as they don't engage in homosexual acts) and I had to just stand there and listen even though my brother is a homosexual. I suspect that there are more Atheists in America than numbers show but its hard to meet other Atheists in the work place. It's kinda like how the Christians living in pagan Rome drew fish in the sand to identify one another. I wish we Atheists had something else like that to identify one another in the work place. Otherwise it's just better to err on the side of caution and keep one's Atheism to one's self.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
54. Comment #103410 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 1:25 pm
Paula - I'm a former Traditional Roman Catholic (e.g. those who reject Vatican II) who studied intensely the Christian faith and Roman Catholicism specifically for many years.
Well, that's got my curiosity racing too! Is someone more likely to abandon their faith and become an atheist if they've been a "hardliner" in their former religion than a liberal, do you think?
I ask, because I'm aware of quite a few people on this site now who've self-identified as having previously been evangelicals or missionaries or, in your case, FightingFalcon, from the traditional wing of the church - but I don't think I'm aware of anyone other than myself who used to be a liberal Christian. Yet, actually, I now believe the liberal interpretation of Christianity to be even less defensible than the fundamentalist approach - at least there is an internal logic to what the fundies believe, provided you accept the original premise - that there's a God and that he spoke via the bible.
Anyone else got any thoughts on the relative likelihood of fundies / liberals losing their faith?
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
55. Comment #103412 by VanYoungman on December 25, 2007 at 1:30 pm
Wise Paula,The only thing you may be wrong about is the 40%. It may be much higher. Whatever, count me in that group.
The article simply made the same old errors. De j' vu all over again as our Yogi would put it.
Other Comments by VanYoungman
56. Comment #103413 by Serdan on December 25, 2007 at 1:33 pm
[...] the militant new atheism [...] the terrorism and repression of militant Islamism [...] the new militant atheism is wrong [...]
Excuse me?
Above all, an ideology – for atheism is an ideology – that cannot see its own scientific limitation cannot claim to be scientific.
Is this a serious article or a children's book?
"[...] and then Mr. Tumnus - for that was his name - told Lucy [...]"
Oh, and my name is Anders Kronby Kehlet. Only one of those in the world. ^_^
Other Comments by Serdan
57. Comment #103414 by walk on December 25, 2007 at 1:36 pm
A number of my friends here in the US are wishy-washy new age spiritualists. They've never really thought too much (rationally) about the whole deal, and they say things like, "Well, I sort of believe in some kind of higher power, and I feel I'm connected to the Universal Consciousness, and if I manifest my thoughts and put them on the "Grid" I know the universe will respond in my favor." - - - YUK!!! Other Comments by walk
58. Comment #103415 by FightingFalcon on December 25, 2007 at 1:43 pm
Paula - unfortunately, I doubt that hardliners are any more likely than liberal Christians to abandon their faith. For me, what did it was that the more research I did into my faith, the more questions I had. Because I was so incredibly devout, I let religion take over my life and basically rule me. But if I was going to submit myself to religion then I wanted to study all aspects of it. Not just Christianity either but Islam, Judaism, pagan religions, etc. At a younger age I was able to cast away doubts and questions but as I got older I couldn't do it anymore. The question that ultimately did me in was "Why Christianity? Why do I believe? Why not Islam? They have a holy book, "savior" (I use that term loosely), an ascension story, etc. Why am I a Christian?" That question plagued me for years and eventually I realized the obvious truth. Unfortunately for all of us, most hardliners aren't as inquisitive about faith as I was. I researched all aspects of my faith - not just the Bible. But also who wrote it, what their motivation was, what the time period was, the socio-economic situation, political make-up, pagan religions that influenced the writing of the Bible, etc. etc. etc. Most hardliners stop their research at the Bible and go no further. For me that wasn't enough. If I was going to accept a book as the Word of God, I would want to know who wrote it, when, where, why, how, etc.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
59. Comment #103417 by clodhopper on December 25, 2007 at 1:59 pm
For doubt admits the viability of other views, and that is the basis of wisdom and tolerance.
No. It opens the door to being duped. It is the certainty of religion that poisons and the doubt of atheism that quests for truth.
This, surely, is where the new militant atheism is wrong. It is totalitarian in its prescription for human happiness.
No, wrong again, atheism gives no prescription. Go do some bleeding homework.
Other Comments by clodhopper
60. Comment #103418 by Double Bass Atheist on December 25, 2007 at 2:01 pm
Paula Kirby - I recently wrote part of this story in another thread, but here it is again with a bit more commentary:
The owner of the company I work for is a VERY passionate Christian and surrounds himself with like-minded sheep. 'God' is actually mentioned in just about every corporate newsletter. That's right, this guy and his people actually think their imaginary friend is guiding the company's direction. I feel like I work for a corporate theocracy. A few years ago they brought in a 'Christian geologist' (I'm not kidding!) for a company-sponsored luncheon in order to tell us that the dinosaurs and man existed at the same time.
Well, guess what?! The owner's wife now has terminal brain cancer and been given 14 months to live. He actually wrote about this sad reality in a recent newsletter but in typical mind-numbingly moronic Christian fashion, attributed it to "God's plan."
If I ever I leave this company I'm going to ask him, "If your wife's cancer was part of 'Gods plan', why did you go to the doctors? Why bother with the chemotherapy?"
I know this sounds insensitive, but as an atheist working at this company, I really do feel like "a lion in the den of Christians" as the saying goes.
No, it is not legal in the US to fire someone for being an atheist, but what would happen is that my position would be marginalized, and/or I'd actually get fired for something else… something very, very trivial.
Paula, I can understand how you, living in the UK (sometimes I'm jealous!) would have difficulty understanding my situation, and others like it. It is not really "discrimination against non-believers" as much as the fact that the pious here simply look down upon atheists… we're considered just one notch above pedophiles on the scumbag scale. Once the Christian ownership discovered my atheism, I would never be a position of trust within this company again. The job pays well, so I would like to keep it.
Other Comments by Double Bass Atheist
61. Comment #103419 by EEguy on December 25, 2007 at 2:09 pm
Paula -I am a little different than some of the other posters. I was raised liberal by a father who was a former divinity student and lost the faith, and by a mother from the deep south who (having been brought up in an orphanage) never got any. As a result, I have never been religious. I would guess that the 40% might be a bit low. I live in a very religious area, and have found that to get along with all of my co-workers it is best not to mention religion at all. Another interesting phenomenon I have discovered while working at an engineering company is how my co-workers compartmentalize so well. There is no supernatural intervention allowed for the cause or solution to engineering problems, but it is allowed in the origin of life and the stories of the bible. Anyway I feel definitely part of a small minority having never been religious.
Other Comments by EEguy
62. Comment #103420 by Mark Smith on December 25, 2007 at 2:13 pm
PaulaI come from a conservative evangelical background. I might be over-generalising from my own experience, but I tend to think that such a background does more easily lead to a switch over to atheism. That's because 'true faith' for the conservative is very tightly defined, and the conservative has already concluded that more liberal religious views just don't work. For example, the conservative evangelical believes that if you accept the Bible is not inerrant then there is no credible alternative which keeps it as a holy book. So if you eventually conclude it is not inerrant, a more liberal Christian position has already been ruled out and you can't move to it. The same is true of other 'key issues', eg homosexuality and abortion (which is why I think they fight so strongly over them).
Somebody who is a liberal Christian, on the other hand, it seems to me has the option simply (though I'm not implying they might do so lightly) to change their mind on particular points, without them thinking that means they have to jack the whole lot in.
Other Comments by Mark Smith
63. Comment #103421 by Bremas on December 25, 2007 at 2:15 pm
Happy Newton DayI too am curious about the "religious" backgrounds of those hanging out here. Other sites I frequent allow polling. I wonder if Josh would be up for this.
Off topic: I heard someone I knew yesterday say that they wouldn't vote for Obama for president because they didn't want a muslim running the country. Just thought I'd chuck it out there. I started to explain that he wasn't a muslim until I realized the trap that I had fallen into and shut up.
Other Comments by Bremas
64. Comment #103422 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 2:18 pm
Off topic: I heard someone I knew yesterday say that they wouldn't vote for Obama for president because they didn't want a muslim running the country. Just thought I'd chuck it out there. I started to explain that he wasn't a muslim until I realized the trap that I had fallen into and shut up.
Obama bin Laden for President!
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
65. Comment #103424 by walk on December 25, 2007 at 2:27 pm
Paula,Actually it's Barack Hussein Obama Bin Laden! (Can't believe that's really his middle name).
Other Comments by walk
66. Comment #103425 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 2:45 pm
There have been some really fascinating and - for me - eye-opening posts here tonight. Thanks for all of them. I really feel for those of you who don't feel able to be open about your atheism. It's not that I go round talking about nothing else myself, but I'm fortunate in that I certainly never need to actively hide it. I'm full of admiration for those of you who are atheists in such difficult circumstances. Hats off to you all. The posts on evangelicalism/liberalism have been interesting too. Loads to think about there. I think Mark may be on to something when he suggests that liberals have room to manoeuvre in their faith, so particular questions that jar are more easily accommodated. I remember myself taking such a liberal view on individual questions - not believing this literally, not believing that literally - that when I finally woke up and asked myself what I did actually believe then, I was shocked to find it didn't make any sense whatsoever! But I'd been unwittingly keeping that secret from myself for some time by then.
Thanks again to everyone who's posted tonight - it's been fascinating.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
67. Comment #103428 by dyingfaith on December 25, 2007 at 2:53 pm
It seems like the same old argument that has already been done, just rehashed. ..."Hitler and Stalin, both driven by what they believed a "scientific" ideology"...
Did I miss something? Since when did either ever demonstrate "scientific ideology". I want evidence please :)
Other Comments by dyingfaith
68. Comment #103433 by Canuck#1 on December 25, 2007 at 3:41 pm
Paula... I too came out of the heart of fundamental christianity...including a home environment...my weeks were occupied by what was called prayer and praise services and by evangelistic meeting attempting to convert the "sinners". As well I attended youth groups and christian service brigades. Eventually I went away to a Bible school (3 years), an institution that called itself the west point of christian service (a reference to the miitary academy) and from there to a Lutheran University. From there I was a teacher during the week and a lay preacher on the weekend. My journey to atheism was long and difficult but here I have arrived and have found a peace I never had in my christian experience. A final note...I am 72 and I have never been more at peace than I am now. I would like to comment on the article but I will save that for a later time. I do appreciate what you and others like us have experienced... Other Comments by Canuck#1
69. Comment #103435 by Dr Benway on December 25, 2007 at 3:51 pm
Can natural selection account for the number of human heads filled with more wool than sense? Survival of the warmest, perhaps?rod-the-farmer: And this is the first I have heard about a flawed understanding of genetics, by Stalin. Anyone else heard of this?Cons are the easiest to con. Men driven by wishful thinking are especially vulnerable to any sell that plays to their hopes.
From Stalin's perspective, Lysenko must have seemed like a dream come true - a hard-working prole without formal education who seemed to know how to increase crop yields. Thanks to Stalin's blessing, the entire Soviet bureaucracy made way for Lysenko. Anyone with an unkind or questioning word was purged. From Wikipedia:
In 1927, at 29 years of age and working at an agricultural experiment station in Azerbaijan, he (Lysenko) was credited by the Soviet newspaper Pravda with having discovered a method to fertilize fields without using fertilizers or minerals, and with having proved that a winter crop of peas could be grown in Azerbaijan, "turning the barren fields of the Transcaucasus green in winter, so that cattle will not perish from poor feeding, and the peasant Turk will live through the winter without trembling for tomorrow."[2] In succeeding years, however, further attempts to grow the peas were unsuccessful.Stalin and Hitler took advantage of the poor, gullible, disenfranchised masses in their countries. Both leaders were ultimately brought low and now stand as objects of hatred and ridicule for their silly ideas.
Stalin and Hitler lesson learned: gullibility kills.
Other Comments by Dr Benway
70. Comment #103436 by Michael King on December 25, 2007 at 4:12 pm
...the books that have spearheaded the militant new atheism have not sought to persuade, reach out or reason...
Has the writer of the article actually read the books?
Other Comments by Michael King
71. Comment #103438 by mmurray on December 25, 2007 at 4:24 pm
No one becomes an Atheist by accident.
It depends if you count having atheist parents an accident. I was born into a Catholic/Anglican family but got raised Catholic because that was the deal my mother (Anglican) had to do to be allowed to marry my father in a Catholic Church. I gave it all up mid teens because it conflicted too much with brains and hormones. It helped being in Australia where being religious (used to be?) weird. My wife was raised by atheist parents so religion just wasn't something that got mentioned. Our kids were raised by atheist parents of course so religion is a non topic. My son came home from school early on asking who `Gwod' (sic) was. He told us it seemed like a silly idea which, if your brain hasn't been prepared by childhood indoctrination, it is.
There are some amusing comments on the Times Online site. I liked the one about `atheists won't be celebrating in 2000 years time'. I think the person posting that thought it was very clever. Of course we won't be celebrating there won't be any atheists -- we will have won hundreds of years before Christmas 4007.
OK off to see The Golden Compass --- for some reason the release was delayed till Boxing Day in Australia.
Michael Murray
Other Comments by mmurray
72. Comment #103439 by mmurray on December 25, 2007 at 4:27 pm
Those modish atheists who claim to understand the panoply of religious experience, or myth as they would have it, are, in the words of a critic, like "someone holding forth on biology whose only knowledge of the subject isThe Book of British Birds".
But surely a central tenet for many Christians is that you can hold forth on anything if you have read only The One Book?
Michael
Other Comments by mmurray
73. Comment #103441 by walk on December 25, 2007 at 4:30 pm
Canuck#1 (70) My journey to atheism was long and difficult but here I have arrived and have found a peace I never had in my christian experience.Thank you for that. I wish your entire comment could be read by all believers. It might give pause to those who are convinced that without a god-belief a person can't lead a happy, fulfilling life.
Congratulations on your amazing journey. Your story reminds me of the wonderful Dan Barker book, "Losing Faith in Faith". It takes a special kind of courage to reverse paths after having invested such a large part of your life in the church. Kudos!
Steve
Other Comments by walk
74. Comment #103442 by Richard Morgan on December 25, 2007 at 4:31 pm
Faith admits to both doubt and unknowingness. It is not a provable dimension. But it is one of extraordinary power and potential.
The faith-heads loving saying things like that, as if saying the words made them true. But has anyone ever shown us an example of "power and potential" that is exclusive to religion?
It would deny as unscientific the spiritual dimension that is as truly Darwinian in its evolution and persistence as patterns of behaviour or genetics.
This is beautifully silly. But why doesn't the writer go all the way? The principles of evolution concern species, not individuals, and no species is destined to exist for ever. Not even Man. United supporters.
Sure, very non-random mutations are trying to help religion adapt to new environments, but it is clear we are witnessing the death-throes of the species called "religion".
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
75. Comment #103444 by Richard Morgan on December 25, 2007 at 4:38 pm
Just a reminder:256. Atheist banned from committee on religious education
Comment #27809 by Richard Morgan on March 26, 2007 at 9:47 pm
#27790 by justme : When you say
Finally, using real names opens up the chance that stalkers, abusive individuals, or even job discrimination can occur. This is a real personal concern to me since I have to go through security clearances on a regular basis, and the people doing those reviews may not live up to the ideals of the profession when they do my review. It only takes one, and it is very hard to protest a bad or rejected investigation
...All I can reply is :
OK, Jack, I can appreciate, understand and respect that.
Excuse me for shooting my mouth off like that, but, living in a country where one's being an atheist is of no interest to anyone, I do tend to forget that this is not the case elsewhere.
Clearly, the fact that you need to conceal your identity in this way is a very powerful argument for the need for books like TGD!
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
76. Comment #103448 by Radesq on December 25, 2007 at 5:10 pm
To Richard Morgan 76 In what way is it clear we are witnessing the death throes of religion? It seems to me that perhaps some eyes have been opened by the discussions of science and reason by RD and others. However, editorial commentaries like the Times one above show that some (many?)people will still either consciously or subconsciously deny or misconstrue what their eyes and ears present to them. They also will go to enormous lengths to avoid applying everyday reasoning to the subject of religious faith. Every faith that came before the ones we have today has died or been replaced. But I don't see any certainty that Abrahamic religions will be replaced anytime soon or that they will necessarily be replaced by reason and the scientific method.
Other Comments by Radesq
77. Comment #103450 by mdowe on December 25, 2007 at 5:16 pm
Same old 'mean 'ol atheists' BS. I can't even bear to finish reading these articles anymore -- I just shove them into categories. Other Comments by mdowe
78. Comment #103453 by Sara on December 25, 2007 at 5:30 pm
Paula - I was most recently a liberal Christian. Episcopalian - but raised roman catholic - a rather liberal brand of that, in the sense that no one seemed to take it very seriously. It was just THERE.My move towards atheism was very similar to Fighting Falcon's. Long story short, once I learned Christian history, I couldn't stay on in the church, although I would have been very welcomed to stick around. You don't really have to believe anything in particular in the more liberal branches of the church. Lots of people there don't buy much of the party line – there 's just a tacit agreement to go along with the program. This applies to clergy as well. I'd love to see this change. There are a lot of good people who are, in my opinion, living a lie in at least a part of their lives) in order to hold on to the good things the church offers. Maybe someday they'll figure out a way to do it, that does not involve feigning belief in an imaginary god and his son, who died for our sins, etc., etc.
Other Comments by Sara
79. Comment #103463 by Richard Morgan on December 25, 2007 at 6:00 pm
Radesq :But I don't see any certainty that Abrahamic religions will be replaced anytime soon or that they will necessarily be replaced by reason and the scientific method.
Perhaps you're right on this one. Or perhaps the change is happening with an evolution-like slowness.
As to what will replace the monotheistic religions, I'm not going to try to guess on that one - human beings will be human beings for a long time yet, I imagine.
But the neurosciences are largely replacing exorcisms, the work of Pasteur went a long way to dispelling the myth of divine curses, the solar system has stayed heliocentric...
These are not proofs, but encouraging indicators, I feel.
Dawkin's beloved Zeitgeist is on the move - quite perceptibly if you consider the last fifty years or so.
Let us never forget that editorial commentaries have the same raison d'ętre as everything else in a newspaper - selling newspapers. And with a title like "Man and God", you are likely to attract the attention of theists and atheists - which instantly doubles the potential readership.
I can understand your pessimism, but there are hopeful signs - I believe.
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
80. Comment #103469 by Radesq on December 25, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Agreed, the oil tanker is changing direction. I quibbled with "death throes". Forgive me I don't know your politics, but it seems you are using the more Cheneyesque definition of that term. Thanks for the pep talk though. Other Comments by Radesq
81. Comment #103470 by jaytee_555 on December 25, 2007 at 6:36 pm
Do journalists never bother to check out facts these days? It's a bloody disgrace that no one in authority at The Times cared enough or knew enough to correct the factual errors in this piece. I'm not talking about opinions, which are fair enough - I mean the barefaced lies in this article that underly its structure. This article can no longer be excused as simple ignorance. It can only be a deliberate and mischievous attempt to perpetuate misrepresentations of authors - authors who write clearly and go out of their way to avoid being misunderstood.Atheists are much more attentive and crtitical readers than theists, and are much better at spotting bullshit too. Journalists who write shoddy articles like this, and who clearly make no effort to get basic facts right, cannot expect to be taken seriously - not by atheists, anyway.
Other Comments by jaytee_555
82. Comment #103475 by monkey2 on December 25, 2007 at 7:10 pm
the onslaught of atheism ....It has been a good year for atheists ........ Not since Victorian times has there been such an intense and sustained and suffering, the dividers and the oppressors, debate about religious belief ...... they have heaped scorn and ridicule on those stupid enough to believe the myths and the obscurantist cosmology of religion ........ the bringers of war the antithesis of civilisation and the Enlightenment............ The argument has become highly political.......... as faith issues have emerged at the centre of British and global politics, what was once a tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views, has become a vicious dogfight.......... There has also, however, been a more thoughtful and useful response, which admits the force of many of the atheists' arguments and asks whether faith has been too arrogant or believers too naively narrow in their convictions. Among Christians, there is no doubt that confusion and disillusion are causing considerable anguish............. almost all churches in Britain, and indeed beyond, have been riven by uncertainty.
Apologies for such a large selection of quotes from the article but I like them a lot. I'm all for pouring scorn and ridicule. I think it's the right tactic to employ, at this point in time, to get into a vicious dogfight with the believers.
The author does seem to be saying that the new atheism has become a force to be reckoned with admitting that the arguments employed against atheists, such as Hitler and Stalin, are less than thoughtful or useful.
His or her contribution to the argument was so vague I'm having trouble understanding it. All things considered I'm glad it was printed. Especially so, at this time of year.
Other Comments by monkey2
83. Comment #103487 by The Truth, the light on December 25, 2007 at 7:57 pm
Some interesting comments on The Times site. Quite liked this response:
Atheism is an ideology? No, it is just a lack of belief in supernatural beings. It's just as much an ideology as a-fairyism or a-SantaClausism. Atheists can be nihilists, facists, socialists, etc. They include one of the greatest sociopaths in history (Stalin) as well as the greatest philanthropists of all time (Buffet, Gates, Carnegie). Most atheists I know have adopted some flavour of humanism but it is not obligatory.
All you can say of atheists is that they have emancipated their minds from the myths of ancient people who were struggling to understand the world. If atheists are homophobic it is not because some ancient scribe told them to be. If they are against abortion it is not because they believe in 'souls' entering the foetus at conception. If they are in favour of unprovoked attacks on countries it is not because they believe they've heard messages from beings in the sky advising it. These are negative reasons and are all you will get from the 'ideology' of atheism.
and then on the other side you get the truly ridiculous
If the theory of natural selection were true, why don't people living in the tropics have silver, reflective skin, or eskimos natural fur? And we are supposed to believe that a fish crawled out onto the beach, choked, but his/her co-fish persevered until they became able to live on land. Ridiculous.
Evolution is a religion too. The worship of the time god. Evolutionary psychology is even more absurd.
Other Comments by The Truth, the light
84. Comment #103488 by ChicagoMolly on December 25, 2007 at 8:26 pm
I've been leaving comments about the Bsphere as ChicagoMolly for a while now so I keep it for consistency; and since we write in from everywhere the geographical tag seems useful. Besides, "Chicago Molly" is a W C Fields reference, and one can't have too many of those, can one?I have to say I'm quite tickled to be considered part of an onslaught. I don't think I've ever been in one before. But I suppose it must be one. After all, for thousands of years earthly rulers have propped themselves up with some sort of God Squad to keep the proles from asking embarrassing questions; the system's worked pretty well so far. But if four authors write four critical books in a couple of years that become best-sellers ... suddenly we're looking at The End Of Western Civilization As We Know It! Wow! That's impressive. It shows how massively insecure most religionists are. You can see it in the panic-stricken way the anonymous editorial writer slops all manner of disconnected arguments together into an indigestible mess. It also shows that the Religious Right aren't quite as conservative as they think they are. If they were, they'd acknowledge that there is a reason for the best-seller status of the books. Nobody was forced to buy any of them; there are just lots more atheists out here than they thought, and there are more people willing to entertain the idea of unbelief. It's all part of the free market. But they only accept the marketplace when it delivers the goods they want.
Siobhan Doran {aka ChicagoMolly}
Other Comments by ChicagoMolly
85. Comment #103494 by Cassio on December 25, 2007 at 9:45 pm
"Richard Dawkins's book The God Delusion has sold more than a million copies..."Er, shouldn't that be Richard Dawkins' book (not Dawkins's)? I would expect a better grasp of English grammar from an editor of the Times.
Other Comments by Cassio
86. Comment #103496 by Diacanu on December 25, 2007 at 10:36 pm
The Truth, the light-We're all born atheists.
Careful. I made that assertion in another thread some weeks ago, and 3 dudes ganged up on me, and I had to fight like a demon to fend 'em off.
Other Comments by Diacanu
87. Comment #103497 by ranman55 on December 25, 2007 at 10:44 pm
Why are atheists mentioned in the article referredto as "militant" atheists? What is "militant" atheism? Have atheists taken up arms against religious people somewhere? Just a way for the believers to further denigrate those whose views are in opposition to theirs, I'd guess. And being from the U.S., I've been totally unaware of the heretofore "tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views" that the piece mentioned as having been lost of late, presumably in the U.K., because in America, it's been a philosophical slug-fest for decades with no signs of letting up. In fact, it's getting worse. Oh, well. Happy Holidays!
Other Comments by ranman55
88. Comment #103498 by The Truth, the light on December 25, 2007 at 10:45 pm
Diacanu.Do you have a link to that thread?
I can't for the life of me see how anyone could rationally argue otherwise, as that would imply that babies have a belief in a God, which is purely ridiculous.
Other Comments by The Truth, the light
89. Comment #103499 by Diacanu on December 25, 2007 at 10:56 pm
The Truth, the light-Do you have a link to that thread?
http://richarddawkins.net/jumptocomment.php?articleID=1990&commentID=96656&URLtitle=An-Open-Letter-to-Richard-Dawkins&URLauthor=Father-Jonathan-Morris
Other Comments by Diacanu
90. Comment #103502 by FightingFalcon on December 26, 2007 at 12:33 am
Er, shouldn't that be Richard Dawkins' book (not Dawkins's)? I would expect a better grasp of English grammar from an editor of the Times.
At least in America, you're allowed to use both. It's up to the writer, although I agree that Dawkins' looks more professional.
Other Comments by FightingFalcon
91. Comment #103504 by agn on December 26, 2007 at 1:51 am
"But as faith issues have emerged at the centre of British and global politics, what was once a tolerant debate between believers and unbelievers, respectful and accommodating of each other's views, has become a vicious dogfight."Every statement should be accorded the respect it deserves, which does not make all statements equally respectable, as this editor thinks.
Other Comments by agn
92. Comment #103511 by rod-the-farmer on December 26, 2007 at 3:19 am
Paula - I use an alias, because I recently moved to an area I was told was strongly religious, and felt at the time it would be better to be silent about my lack of faith (since the age of about 10), while my neighbours got to know me. Also, I lost my job the week before we moved, and have been completely unable to get even an interview for another, in a really rural area of Ontario, Canada. I seem to be overqualified. Now that I have been out of work for so long, I am at least contemplating "coming out", which will involve more than just using my real name here. It can't hurt me, now, as far as job prospects go. My son claims several high school friends whose families are profoundly religious, and am concerned about the effect my coming out may have on him. But I know more and more of my friends who also seem to be atheists, so many of them will hopefully be if not supportive, at least neutral. Googling myself reveals far too many people with the same name, even with my nickname, and NO references to me. So maybe I am "safe". (Start Ponder routine) Other Comments by rod-the-farmer
93. Comment #103519 by whig on December 26, 2007 at 3:49 am
Yes, they love to portray us atheists as people who don't know what it's like to feel faith - it's so inconvenient for their case that a large number of us are former Christians ourselves.
Paula, I like using that with god squadders on the street I sometimes feel in the mood to talk to. Once one said you can't really know what you're talking about, and I quickly snapped back that I was till recently a Christian and know quite a lot about religion, theology and church history.
Sara wrote:
Paula - I was most recently a liberal Christian. Episcopalian - but raised roman catholic - a rather liberal brand of that, in the sense that no one seemed to take it very seriously. It was just THERE.
Really? The same with me. I was raised as a Roman Catholic, disliked the most superstitious elements as a teenager and became Church of Ireland (Episcopalian) and then at 19, I read The Age of Reason and ditched the lot.
As to using an alias, I used whig first on an Irish politics site (politics.ie) and have used it for any other forums I joined. People could work out from context who I was on that if they knew me, and I'm not paranoid about anonymity, I just like it. There would be no repercussions among anyone I know if they knew I posted here, I'm known as a liberal rationalist.
As to the article, it's utter tripe. I sensed as much when he described the party known only as the Liberal Democrats as the Liberal Democratic Party. The last few paragraphs are the usual nonsense, and aren't worth responding to when I don't have the author in front of me to challenge him about them. Just to say the quotes around "scientific" probably refer to his own makey-uppy science, where non-Soviet biologists lost their positions. The answer in my mind to the Stalin question is that Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris and others like ourselves are not just promoting atheism, but a whole scientific, rational and liberal tradition. Hitchens makes this point, and it is important.
Other Comments by whig
94. Comment #103525 by PJG on December 26, 2007 at 4:45 am
It is remarkable how people assume atheists "know not of what they speak". I was never raised to be religious but I WAS raised to question. Because of this, I was fascinated by what made people believe in a God that I could see no evidence of. I felt that everything was exactly as I would expect it to be if there were no "higher power", it was only when you put the idea of a God into the picture that questions started to flow!Because I was interested in what made people believe, I read.... a lot... and talked to people... a lot. Most of the people I have ever discussed The Bible with know far less about it than I do and know virtually nothing of its history, contradictions and errors.
Apparently, it is necessary to know a great deal more in order to be capable of rejecting God and religion than it does to accept them!
Other Comments by PJG
95. Comment #103526 by Roger Stanyard on December 26, 2007 at 6:08 am
Paula et al,I've always used my own name when posting to forums but would advise others to be careful in doing so.
My postings to richarddawkins.net have been stalked by a fuckwit fundamentalist pastor who has used them on a blog to personally attack me as part of a string of ad hominem and maliciously libelous statements. He ludicrously suggests (and, apparently, believes) that he has become a public figure for doing so.
It's the same pastor that sent Richard Dawkins a "birthday card" telling him to repent because he'll soon have to meet his maker.
I've gotten thick skin about it but can guarantee that the attacks can be very distressing. Indeed, the idiot even tried to get the local police to investigate my "nefarious" activities in criticising cerationists. (The cops totally ignored him, btw. As far as I can make out they think he is totally barking.)
Where it was of particular concern is that the idiot claimed that I had lied about my qualifications because I had described my 1st degree as a joint honours as well as a BSc in economics. For what it is worth, it was a joint honours degree but the Uiversity of London has strict rules as to what goes on the degree certificate. That means one subject only.
It's distressing because, for example, it also suggests that I (and everyone else who did the same course) have lied to numerous companies and organisations for the last 32 years in obtaining contracts and jobs. As far as I am aware, I believe lying about one's qualifications is a criminal offence. It is not pleasant to have a religious bigot screaming on the Internet that I am a criminal. It is also not very good for one's income/job/business/family, either.
Fortunately the fuckwit appears to have recently lost his job and is living abroad without a work permit, I'm delighted to tell everyone here. ;-)
Roger Stanyard
Other Comments by Roger Stanyard
96. Comment #103527 by Dinah on December 26, 2007 at 6:14 am
'Spiritual and Spirituality' are words that have been so over-used and abused they've become practically meaningless. Anything nowadays which doesn't actually involve atheism or shopping is 'spiritual'. (Though come to think of it someone shopping for healing crystals or aromatherapy oils in Glastonbury would probably claim to be doing something 'spiritual'.)Other Comments by Dinah
97. Comment #103528 by Paula Kirby on December 26, 2007 at 6:24 am
My postings to richarddawkins.net have been stalked by a fuckwit fundamentalist pastorGood grief, Roger. Not sure how to respond to that. There are some seriously crazy people out there.
Other Comments by Paula Kirby
98. Comment #103530 by Dinah on December 26, 2007 at 6:33 am
I recently re-read TGD, and what impressed me was not the 'militancy' of which there was very little, if any, but the humanity and compassion, of which there was much. What made these two qualities stand out was that they were not compromised by dogma or ideology. Whereas a Catholic such as Cardinal Cormac Murphy-O'Connor would no doubt claim to be a compassionate man, he would nevertheless prefer a woman or girl to die in childbirth rather than have an abortion, children to die of starvation rather than allow adults to use contraception, and people to die of AIDS rather than use condoms. In the same way, a Stalinist could not see the evil in condemning masses of people to starvation, because the Party Leader who was worshipped like a god and his cause were regarded as more important than the lives of millions. Even multiculturalism requires its adherents to subvert moral principles by not condemning practices which would normally be considered reprehensible because they are part of a group's 'culture' which must be 'respected'.Other Comments by Dinah
99. Comment #103532 by Erik on December 26, 2007 at 6:35 am
Sorry if it has been rehashed already, but I find the argument that someone like Dawkins is encroaching on the wrong field either disingenuous or just downright ignorant. Leaving aside the fact that a number of atheists are former believers, the simple problem is that religions make claims about what must either be factual or not factual.The claim that God exists is surely a theory about the origin of the universe, even if it is a bad one. So to say, for example, that a physicist cannot hold forth on the existence or not of God is pure nonsense. Similarly, to claim that a biologist has nothing to say about God as the basis of the the origin of life or the diversity of life is complete hogwash. Religious claims are at their heart claims about facts, and therefore subject to scrutiny like any other claim.
And there's the real heart of the problem: science has been pounding religious claims into dust, one by one, over the centuries. In the same way that some scientists were surprised to find that the mechanisms of evolution were discovered, the religious are regularly surprised to find that science does have something to say about deeply-held religious convictions, and it often has the effect of pulling the rug right out from under them. No wonder that believers have to resort to this type of argument.
Other Comments by Erik
100. Comment #103533 by al-rawandi on December 26, 2007 at 6:35 am
Roger,Can you send me a link to this 'pastor's' site? Nothing makes me happier than to lay waste to fucking dick heads like that. It is a hobby of mine, and I rather enjoy the sport. Although it is a bit like hunting a wounded quail with an f-16.
Other Comments by al-rawandi
This article is reposted from a website that accepts comments.
Why not share your comment on the article there as well? CLICK HERE
Over 1.5 million copies sold
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
51. Comment #103407 by Paula Kirby on December 25, 2007 at 1:17 pm
But I'm really intrigued now. Please believe me when I say that my questions stem from genuine curiosity and not from any doubt of the truth of what you say. What do you mean by "devout Christian company"? That the owners are devout Christians? Or that they impose that on their employees in some way? In which case - what ways? Is keeping silent enough for you to avoid hassle - or do you actually have to participate in Christian activities?
Is it legal in the US to recruit and/or fire staff on the basis of their religion or lack of it (other than in religion-related jobs, of course)? Is everyone else in the company a Christian? - or perhaps you have no way of telling, if no one dares "come out" as a non-Christian. I don't doubt you AT ALL, but this conjures up the most bizarre image. I've worked for religious employers before now, but have never been aware of discrimination against non-believers. But I'm in the UK, not the US ...
Other Comments by Paula Kirby