Slashdot Mirror

I would argue just the opposite - that without reference to the supernatural, the commonly accepted definition of what constitutes good and evil is bent toward a definition favorable to whomever is in power. The interesting thing about appeal to the supernatural is that it serves as a natural buffer against undue influence.

But the reason I say I have a unique perspective of evil because I am Christian is because I have received an extensive education in such, at least compared to an unbeliever. This is not to say that an atheist can't understand evil, but that an understanding of evil is the prelude to theism. If God doesn't exist, his will couldn't exist, which means that nothing that exists could be contrary to His non-existent will. Hence, as an atheist you would probably be in the minority if you believe in the existence of evil, or at least you are using a different definition.

I'm not going to get into the whole good-vs-evil bit here, but I would add that it does shed light on why things happen. You mention a bunch of relatively short periods of history for which evil left a black mark on religion. However, I'm able to see this as an indication that even good people can be led astray, and consider it a warning rather than an indictment of religion. I say this because I have seen the overwhelming good that has come from religion (specifically Christianity). Being a Christian, I am involved in charity work and good deeds which go largely unnoticed by the media and the historians. And really, if you look at the history of the last millenium, even when Christians have gone astray, the cumulative total of deaths attributed to them is less than that of legalized abortion.

Using the word 'must' in the phrase "the government shall not tell the public what religion they MUST practice", does not mean the public must practice a religion, it is only there to emphasize that the government cannot command anyone in the practice of the religion of their choice: the 'must' is rhetorical flourish, not strict and overly logico-formal grammar (it is a text intended to be read and understood by all literate 18th century citizens, not logicians). The writers of the constitution were well aware of the atheistic beliefs of the times since they had contact with the Frenchmen who borne them. They even had contact with those who had a strict non-religious or irreligious views of the world (d'Holbach and co.). Saying that they intended for all humans to obligatorily adhere to some form of religion is idiotic. They were educated men of their time, and the constitution they crafted (with the first couple of amendments) reflects that fact.

I follow Christ, but don't dismiss all Atheism as "the lack of a belief."

All atheism is lack of belief. That's what it literally means: a = without, theism = belief in a god or gods. Furthermore, if you "believe" there is no god, underlying that must be a lack of belief there is a god.

It isn't complicated, and it isn't religion. It is just the same common sense that fails to engender belief in the Easter Bunny or Santa. No evidence for an extraordinary proposition is a worthless position to argue from.

However, it takes a major leap of faith to say, "I believe there is No God."

Certainly no more than it takes to say "I believe there is no Santa Claus"; if that's tough for you, then I can imagine it'd be tough to disbelieve in a god or gods as well. Personally, I look at the size and complexity of the universe as implied by the Hubble deep space images, and I laugh comfortably at the idea of gods. Religion is too small an idea to face reality.

I've never found any reason to engender belief in anything that has produced no objective evidence over a reasonable time frame (which I would certainly characterize all religion as having had.) Likewise, I've never had any trouble discarding ideas that seem quite likely to never produce any such evidence in the future. Religion appeals to the fearful, the gullible, the needy, the controlling. None of that describes me.

The idea that Dawkins is a philosopher of religion is a pretty silly one (and one I doubt Dawkins himself would agree with), but it's worth noting that it's pretty dishonest to paint Flew as having "gone in the opposite direction." Flew is now extremely old. He at one point thought that he heard a good argument for deism, but later himself stated that he may have gotten confused and his mental acuity is not what it used to me. He never became religious or endorsed religious ideas. Dawkins has many times stated that he has little or no quarrel with diesm, simply theism, and so on.

My two cents: I would like to think that most of America finds creationism so compelling because it seems to balance the tendencies of the scientific method towards philosophical naturalism, reductivism, towards ignoring questions about first and final causes, towards secularism, etc. Creationism then becomes a sort of heroic optimism against the perceived nihilism of science, even if it is a bit of an over-reaction. However, I frankly don't think that most of us here in the US understand science well enough to be scared of its tendencies. No, I have to understand creationism as the result of bad theology. Creationism is not compelling. Instead, it is needed for a literal reading of the Bible. Without a literal reading of the Bible, it no longer seems be possible to find moral and religious truths in as straightforward a manner as we find scientific and mathematical ones. The person who is not conscientious now seems able to interpret the Bible in whatever way happens to be the most convenient, and the person who is conscientious must now doubt that his or her actions are the right ones. In any case, the average Biblical literalist is still interpreting the Bible. For example, he reads Genesis very differently than, say, a 3rd century BC reader did. This article says it far more convincingly that I could http://www.religion-online.org/showarticle.asp?tit le=1917 . Creationism, then, is not about defending theism. Instead, it is about trying to keep the doubt of modern life sequestered from certain religious principles. Unfortunately, religion has always involved doubt. It is certain aspects of the modern scientific method that do not involve doubt- we do not doubt, for example, that a jet will take off (barring some sort of catastrophe), or that an apple will fall towards the Earth. This kind of certainty is what needs to be kept separate from religion.

"What you are confusing is atheism and what we might call 'anti-theism'. The first is absense of a belief, the second is positive belief or faith in an absense. They are certainly not the same thing."

Hmmm, I looked it up with a google "define: atheism" and got this from princeton (top of the list)...

1. The doctrine or belief that there is no God. (your "anti-theism")
2. A lack of belief in the existence of God or gods. (your "atheisim")

While I agree they are not the "same thing", I think it's fairly clear there are two sub-categories of atheist, I think I can safely say my comment implies type #1, at the very least the word "know" should have given the reader a strong clue.

"This is unclear thinking, and philosophically empty."

I see your insult and raise you a snarky remark about your comprehension skills and Horatio. ;)

Philosophy is more than a bad car analogy my freind.

Put another way it requires faith to "know" god does or does not exist, "I don't know but I believe XYZ" is the only intellectually honest answer anyone can give to the question of god's existance.

This is unclear thinking, and philosophically empty.

Atheism is not a belief. It is absense of belief. It is the default position. We are all atheists about (at least) an infinite number of things. I don't believe in the great god Flang Splut. Neither do you. But we don't believe in him not because you can't prove he exists, but for a better reason... you don't have a belief in him at all. Why? Because you had not even heard of him. This is why atheism is the default position. It is also not philosophically sensible to try and get around this by claiming that as soon as you heard of this new god, you then immediately developed a faith in his absense. That is absurd. You life is not now filled with a new powerful faith; instead, you will simply not bother thinking about him.

What you are confusing is atheism and what we might call 'anti-theism'. The first is absense of a belief, the second is positive belief or faith in an absense. They are certainly not the same thing.

"Of course there are several non-theistic theories of rights, based on ideas of human nature and our minimum needs to have the ability to achieve happiness."

Who says you have a right to be happy?

"What are the maintenance requirements of the human being? Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and food, clothing, shelter and medical care."

First off, I would disagree with the premise here, because some of those things require the "taking" from another, under penalty of force. Namely, if you are all by yourself, and are sick or injured, you don't have a "right" to medical care, except for the care you can provide yourself. By adding "Medical Care" to the list of items you necissarily have to create a mechanism to provide it in a greater society.

Now take that a step further, I would suggest that forcing medical care upon people who don't desire or require it is a violation of human right or liberty. Remember a while ago the shooting of the Amish School House, the parents of the victims refused all forms of Modern Medical Care, something that is considered a "right" by the thesis presented above.

"Keeping us confused and divided against one another about these rights, the multinational power elite teaches us in America that only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights."

Not understanding what "Libery" is, is a fatal flaw of modern socialism and socialistic beliefs. Liberty is PERSONAL freedom. It is what you are born with, requires no intervention by government or society to grant.

I agree with your sentiment that multinational power (and corporations) have skewed what is viewed as liberty. Some of the same rights you probably don't agree with are also enumerated in the Bill of Rights, right to be secure in person, freedom of speech, right to bear arms etc all have been severely curtailed, and most often not by the political "right" but rather the political "left", though the right seems to be holding its own in this regard lately.

You think you have free speech? Go on National TV and say the N word. Political Correctness is by definition chilling "Free Speech". Yet I don't hear the left crying "censorship" like they do when people try to restrict Porn. Hypocritical in my opinion.

"We are further encouraged to argue about whether rights must be earned or whether it is the duty of the government to guarantee them."

Rights are never earned. Those things often cited as "rights" are actually privileges. It isn't the duty of the government to guarantee rights, that places the "creator" status upon government. Only the creator of a thing can guarantee anything. Government's proper role is defined in the Preamble of the US government.

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

Most people think that government should "promote common defense" and "provide general welfare". Which is why you have the nanny state we have now, where EVERY little detail of life is becoming codified into law.

"Invoking theism, as usual, explains nothing. We have no signed statement from any god or group of gods laying out rights;"

Right! Because you reject the Creator, you necissarily reject the "self evident" nature of these rights. Which is why you think government is the granter and guaranteer of rights. Which is why you seem to think that forcibly taking something is a right, in the case of Medical Care. The only way this "right" can be assured is by FORCE of governemnt and "provided" by said government to the individual.

Which means you don't understand Liberty.

If there is no god, then there are no "rights" other than what man creates for himself.

Of course there are several non-theistic theories of rights, based on ideas of human nature and our minimum needs to have the ability to achieve happiness.

I like Kerry Thornley's formulation:

There are at least seven natural rights, or the Tao of human activity in society possesses seven attributes, or people are like machines only in the respect that they don't work good if you neglect their maintenance requirements.

What are the maintenance requirements of the human being? Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and food, clothing, shelter and medical care.

Keeping us confused and divided against one another about these rights, the multinational power elite teaches us in America that only life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights. In socialist nations they promote the view that only food,clothing, shelter and medical care are rights.

We are further encouraged to argue about whether rights must be earned or whether it is the duty of the government to guarantee them. Everyone necessarily struggles for their rights, and no government can ever guarantee anything except death and taxes.

All that bickering begs the relevant question: What can we do in voluntary cooperation to see that our natural rights, our intimate functional needs, are respected? Without that much, human beings are incapable of behaving as constructively rational and loving members of any population.

Invoking theism, as usual, explains nothing. We have no signed statement from any god or group of gods laying out rights; and even if we did, supernatualism in ethics or politics is simply the ultimate "might makes right" argument. Why should the opinions of some deity or deities determine what is right, other than the arguement "you're going to hell if you disagree"?

I'm not sure why you would be shunned for un-Christian views. What region do you live in? On the East Coast US it's a mixed bag, some will shun, some will embrace, but most will be indifferent.

I'm a Catholic convert and all of my atheist/agnostic friends still hang with me. We're capable of having rational discussions on philosophy, religion, etc and have a blast doing it, but perhaps that's the Catholic tendency toward philosophy at work. The theism thing came up for discussion a few times, but it became obvious that trying to "prove" either position simply meant a contest of frames of reference and presuppositions. We each have our bets on one or the other side of Pascal's wager and we'll either find out, or not, in the end who is right.

About the dating, PLEASE seek someone with your own beliefs. A religious/non-religious difference in a marriage or serious relationship would drive a big wedge between the two of you. You might be cool with her going to church on Sundays, but she'll be hurting that you don't come with her. Maybe she'll feel your contempt for her beliefs. And what if you have kids? How should they be raised? If you're just dating for noncommittal fun, go for whatever you like, but if you are serious about finding a lifelong partner, take this advice into consideration.

Well, unless he changes his views sometime soon, he's going to be pretty much discredited. Not unlike a biochemist who merely states that DNA would be near impossible to form via Darwinian evolution, so everyone gets pissed and starts shouting 'Evil theist who doesn't believe in a biological theory that was formed before while everyone thought that cells were simple solid blobs! Attack!' Anything scientific that merely hints at theism having creditability is thrown out, partly because science is business, partly because no one wants to hear that maybe, just maybe, there is a supreme being(s) that exists outside of the realm of known/currently perceivable scientific knowledge. I, for one, find it to be hilarious that theophobia is the only thing keeping Darwinian evolution from being seriously challenged, as Darwin, being a man of science who had the balls to stand up to religion, would have wanted, and would probably do today (after shitting himself once he realized that his theories were being so abused by idiots who take his theory as a law). Now, we'll probably see the same thing happening to the Big Bang theory.
I wonder where else Hawking can get a job?

Many of my classmates don't like to speak with me, or even "look down" on me for my un-Christian views. In addition, I've had multiple girls refuse to date me simply because I'm not Christian.

Ouch. I live in Italy, that is a strongly Catholic country, yet I still have to look for a Christian girl that refuses to date an atheist fellow (They may not like him in principle, and that's fine, but not arrive almost at a date and let it down just because of religion).

However, I must admit that as a self-taught atheist, I'd have troubles in spending my life with a strongly religious girl. Generic theism I've met and it's OK, but a strongly Christian/Muslim/whatever, I wouldn't really like. I can be a friend and behave nicely, of course, but betting my feelings and life, no, thanks. I like to go out with clever girls with whom I can talk and with a free mind (yes, there are), and having someone believing in fairy tales in my bed wouldn't be funny, just silly and boring. Maybe I'm racist, who knows (and who cares, by the way). Maybe one day I'll change my mind.

1. The belief in one God as the creator and ruler of the universe, without rejection of revelation (distinguished from deism).

2. belief in the existence of a god or gods (opposed to atheism).

But I'm a bit precise in what I say (or I try to be), and when I say "I don't believe in x," I mean precisely that I do not have a positive belief that x is true, not "I know x is false." It might be because I consider x to be unknowable, or I consider the question meaningless, or I find no credible reason to believe in it.

But apparently my position isn't that of the atheists you take offense with, so other than quibbling over terminology (why does it always come down to that?) there isn't much point for either of us. Neither of us believe, both will burn equally if the Christian theology is correct, and that's about the gist of it.

Nothing can disprove God's existence in the same way that we can't disprove that a china teapot is currently orbiting the sun. The burden of proof is not on the skeptic and it is only in religion where it is accepted to put that burden of proof onto him/her. So no, this theory won't disprove God if you believe in him. But the more theory and evidence that comes out giving naturalistic answers to questions about how the world works brings us closer to making the idea of a God irrelevant.

The parent post was titled Please Check Your Definitions. I did, and they did not agree with the gp.

What the parent post was most likely commenting about was that the author should not be using the textbook definitions of the words when criticizing atheists, because the standard textbook definitions rarely capture the true meaning of the word. That is why he broke up the words into their individual parts (such as [a] {without} / [theism] {belief in a supreme being}). The purpose was to show why the standard dictionary definitions are wrong.

By saying "check your definitions" he wasnt saying to check the dictionary. He was saying to check the true meanings behind the words, not just look them up in a dictionary whose purpose is to be as brief as possible on the subject.

but to get snarky at someone for using the words in the contexts that these mainstream sources define them as is just, well, being bitchy.

I was simply trying to comment on why the grand parent post was not incorrect, which you were trying to prove. I was not any more "snarky" or "bitchy" in my post than you were:

If you are going to criticize people for not doing the research, at least have the courtesy to do it yourself.

--

The sources that you are using are incomplete. They do not seperate anti-theism and atheism. I have looked at both the Merriam-Webster dictionary and here is no definition for anti-theism at all. That is why in their case they have just combined the two definitions into one word. This works fine because that is the definition that is more commonly used (incorrectly however) for the word atheism.

The parent post was titled Please Check Your Definitions. I did, and they did not agree with the gp. That was my entire point. You may want to quarrel with Merriam-Webster and Wikipedia on the definitions of these words, which is fine, but to get snarky at someone for using the words in the contexts that these mainstream sources define them as is just, well, being bitchy.

Yes that's one possibility and to be fair a valid one, the numbers for the different age groups I quoted are from the same study. But if you read the report you'll notice their are two studies, A 1990 study and a 2001 follow up. Here's the important fact:

"In 1990, 90% of the adult population identified with one or another
religion group. In 2001, such identification has dropped to %81 percent."

US Population (2000 est.): 281,421,906 * %19 = 53,470,162
US Population (1990 est.): 249,438,712 * %10 = 24,943,871

28.5 million people lost faith is religion over this 9 year period!!! A clear trend that supports my conclusions. I wouldn't be surprised if the numbers are even higher now.

The point, when I wrote "let us trust a literary professor on science and mathematical models of morals", was that Lewis was not only light years outside his domain of expertise when he discussed human behaviour and morals in different cultures (anthropology and evolutionary biology) -- but that even most of the relevant research was done far after the book was written.

I know, I just sometimes cannot resist a smart-alec reply....

Incidentally, I came was convinced an essentially literary and psychological argument for accepting the Gospel of St John as the most accurate account of the life of Jesus in a book by a physicist (Russell Stannard).

The particular argument Lewis makes for absolute morality (at least in The Abolition of Man, which I am familiar with) is not really likely to be that affected by those advances. It rests on on the intrinsic contradition in moral relativism, the way in which arguments for any particular position develop, and similarities between moral teachings in different cultures, religions and times.

How does he answer the basic problem of theology -- why accept something for true without any reason?

Not without reason - see my other comments on this thread and below.

Consider that (a) there are innumerable theories

That used to bother me, but was one of the reasons I was an agnostic. I changed by mind for a number of reasons. Most importantly, the fact that there are numerous conflicting theories does not prove that they are all false - only that they cannot all be right.

and (b) a very small percentage of people brought up in a religion switches

It does show that some people are indoctrinated, however, it does not show that all are indoctrinated - many do "switch", often despite pressures not to. I think what it shows most strongly is that most people are not that interested in finding the truth per se. I do not think that this is only evident in matter of religion - consider how easily people accept junk science, political promises that are not credible etc.

and most I've seen haven't been that mentally stable

Not in my experience. I suspect you see a biased sample, because it is fairly extreme types that make the biggest fuss about conversion. Most people assume that my wife was "always" Christian because she does not talk about the conversion experience - she was brought up Buddhist. Of course my experience may be biased the other way by meeting people in mainstream churches that tend not to attract the nutters.

I remember that I wasn't impressed by his reasoning.

It was reasoning, even if flawed. He did not believe for no reason.

But maybe I should read C S Lewis

Don't know the difference between correlation and causation, do you?

nbritton: "Thankfully religion is on a rapidly declining trend[1]:
* 23% of 18-34 year olds label them self's as 'Secular' or 'Somewhat Secular', compared to 10% of people 65 years old and up."

That doesn't necessarily imply that religion is 'on a rapidly declining trend'. It probably just implies that people get more religious as they get older. It doesn't necessarily imply either.