I just started reading this, and find myself nodding my head about every 10 seconds. Has anyone else picked this up?

Thanks for the heads up, Troy. I checked it out on Amazon, read some reviews, and decided to order it. It looks like it will help me refine my arguments on why I believe faith is the biggest problem the world faces, and why religious tenants must be altered significantly or abolished altogether. I always have trouble explaining that to religious people in terms they can actually understand. They always think I'm attacking their faith and make it personal, when it isn't. The editorial review I read included Harris' idea (one I myself subscribe to) that little (if any) good can come from systems more concerned with life after death than the here and now, and how that prevents progress.

my religious tenant includes this belief. Life after death (i.e. a life of the spirit) begins here and now.

The themes of this book seem similar to another relatively new book, The Root of All Evil. One of the authors of that book taught a class at the same time I did at the beginning of the year, and the book was just getting published. You can read more on it here.

Another interesting point he's making is that in any other area it's completely OK to say, "I think you're wrong." But not on the issue of faith... totally tabboo. And so, we adopt this PC approach to never speaking out against what others believe, no matter how imposing or outrageous, for fear of being labeled "intolerant." And by doing so we condone imposing, outrageous and - often - dangerous behaviors and beliefs.

whoo-eee.

It is largely (in my own tiny mind anyway) somewhat pointless to 'refine your argumets'... as if you can logically deconstruct or unhinge someones faith. Of course, studying the situation (I was going to say 'problem' but I think that carrys too much bagage to be used here effectively) is never a bad thing... but believing that you can - using argument and evidence, change someones mind as it were isnt effective.

I might pick up this book since it does look interesting - but isnt this one of the tons like it that are simply preaching to the choir? I can hold up a copy of Richard Dawkins The Blind Watchmaker in one hand, and the Bible in the other, point out silly and absurd ideas (and indeed 'facts') contained in both, have intelligent conversations with thoughtful people of faith, and do you know where it winds up? Right back at square 1. I have no idea where I am going with this line of thinking...

So yeah.... Im a godless infidel... but the more I realize (or rather 'believe') how similar the worlds religions are at their core, what appears to be their social, familial, and organizational, selfserving, frequently patriarchal goals and customs, and how much of the sacred texts seem to me little else but pure (without a doubt) dogmatic-superstition, Im must sit in stunned stupor at how many billions subscribe to them. Am I that excruciatingly faithless, pitiful and obtuse? (laugh... what huberis, huh? Obviously, I need to be SAVED! )

Having said that, my wife is a person of faith...and also of science. We have been married for 15 years, and she is indoctrinating (What other word do you use?) our 2 daughters into her faith... not without some reservations on my part, but I go with them too - and with a smile. But you know what? I also believe that overall, the community, friendship and well-meaning atmosphere on balance is not a bad thing. Perhaps the little ones will grow up to believe their church teachings are silly and absurd... as I came to believe after being raised Catholic (I did the whole confirmation thing etc, etc)... but perhaps not. I see that faith is an indispensible, happy part of some peoples lives, and I will not so quickly cast that aside out of hand for my own kids. (Although it seems to me often that the people that 'need it the most' and attempt to spread it the hardest are the scary ones you need to seriously watch)

I think the point Im trying to make is that its not always simply 'PC' behavior when you do not 'speak out' against what others believe... the question (of course) is where to draw the line. Though I rail against cultural relativism where all things are deemed equal, it is not always easy to draw the line unless you are slaughtering goats on my front lawn. If you effectively believe that there is a big man in the sky watching over all of us, do I call that silly, groundless and absurd? There is nothing I can say to convince you otherwise regardless. How about if you choose to kneel down and face Mecca a few times a day? How about if you want to find inner peace through the peacefull pursuit of obscure and miscellaneous sanscrit... or on a cereal box for all it matters. The problem with the "I think Your Wrong" process is, as Im sure we can all agree, is that its not about prooving a point, since the point cant be prooved. It really does come down to what we as individuals and as a collective society decide what is acceptible behavior in society as a whole.

gads - seriously rambling and babling at the same time. Sorry I dont think I made any cogent points whatsoever... I am going to pick that book up so I can go off into a corner and mumble to myself some more...

I have been put on the waiting list at my library for this (End of Faith) and for 'The God Delusion' by Richard Dawkins. I am 8th and 22nd in line respectively for several copies. Apparently there quite an interest here in Boulder. I hope they are all quick readers.

Funny how I always have a similar problem Anna... when I argue against atheism, atheists tend to take it personally.

I may pick this up so as to refine my argument on why I believe atheism is the biggest problem the world faces....

And Anna, I just wish you weren't so doggone intolerant... my goodness! "I believe faith is the biggest problem the world faces, and... religious tenants must be altered significantly or abolished altogether." What are you going to do to us???

And I'm with brookd on the life after death thing. It's what we do HERE that matters. Well put brookd.

Anyway, I'll give this a lookee......
J

Nothing more than attempt to get you to think and to then change your mind, John. Nothing intolerant about that.

This is getting to be a good conversation already, and I haven't even gotten the book! spr, I thought you made several cogent points, and I'm open to the eventuality that I might find that attempts at mind-changing dialogue with people of faith is fruitless. I'm not there yet. Right now my head is too full of visions of a world where people act rationally with religion as they do with other aspects of their life, and say, yes, some of this is hogwash, obviously so, but still attempt to hold on to some of the ideals, which I think are essential to our survival. Ideals like helping your fellow man, and connection, etc. I'm not interested in abolishing the idea of god, or taking away someone's Jesus. But at a certain point the bullshit has got to stop, and in my mind, it starts with challenging openly aspects of religious narratives that are dangerous, or even merely absurd. I think Troy is on to something about the special niche carved out with respect to religious dialogue, and at a point, that made sense, since religious people could and would sooner kill you than listen to you if you challenged anything they had to say (in some places they still do). It doesn't make sense anymore in the West at least, and so I talk. And study, and refine. Plus it's kinda fun.

"act rationally with religion"..

ahhh. There is the rub, isnt it? Isnt the adoption of religious faith... almost by definition... irrational? Rationality is only applicable in a scientific context - 'agreeable to reason'... etc... http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/rational You wont find the word 'Rational' in any popular religious text that I know of, though I admittedly have only read a fair sampling of a few... partly for literary curiosity, but largely so that I can discuss the topic without being a complete moronic hypocrite.

"...But at a certain point the bullshit has got to stop, and in my mind, it starts with challenging openly aspects of religious narratives that are dangerous, or even merely absurd..."

merely absurd according to who? some godless scientist ?? Is believing the eucharist actual body absurd, and why would you care? Dont kid yourself... there are infinite gradations of what you might consider absurd that others would consider matter-of-fact, or truth.

Thats why we have laws, to put some social rules in place that are outside of religious doctrine. Frequently they overlap nicely, sometimes they do not.. and of course it can be a problem when people believe they are operating for a higher power to the detriment of society. A well worn example might be the catholic church trying to 'manage' repeated abuse internally... acting as if they are above the accepted law, or rather feeling as if it is more appropriate to do so. This behavior is important to some degree... thats why we have enshrined priveledged communication within the (or a) church... society recognizes that this is important and valuable. Lets not just pick on the catholics either.... suicide bombers and jihadists anyone? History is absolutely littered with embarrassing and worse, frightful endeavors undertaken in the name of religion - most of which are written off as ancient history, but really... all of it goes on.

It gets very complicated very, very quickly. Constraining religion(s), the so-called seperation of church and state, the american ideals of freedom of faith and expression... non-american cultures (and in fact most if not all religions) that do not subscribe in any way to such freedoms, blah, blah blah...

=============

Hey, I applaud your enthusiasm to engage a few braincells in wrapping your mind around the issues.... but I tell you... and I think Im right here.... reason, and religion do not mix. Where the rubber meets the road, faith precludes questions, period. People of faith I think feel slighted by that statement - in that nobody wants to be called unreasonable or superstitious or compared to a lemming.... (in modern society, that means you may be a whackjob or deficient in some way)... but when you cut away the chaff, thats really what your left with. Some may be perfectly comfortable with that in fact... being completely and spiritually unhappy on the other hand that the universe is little more than than a place where we burn oxygen for a few years and then die with little to no 'cosmic significance' or higher importance other than DNAs built in propagation mechanisms.

thanks for the recommendation, troy.



sometimes i wonder if "both" can be true in a way...what makes significance significant--who defines that?

most might admit to having a sort of awe or wonder in life, admit to a sense of mystery. that mystery could be some divine god. might be nothing more or less than life collective. and that life collective has some interesting humans as voices for this point in evolutionary history as the aformentioned humans understand it.

maybe the christian, muslim, pagan, buddhist, whatever-ist here and now sanctity (or even the elusive eternal) is just a jungian battle between archtypes? hell if i know...but i'd wager we'd still be preaching the similar sermons. and i'd still be runnin' scared from my fundie brethren.

i wonder if the meaning of all things is what we think it is--if we're all really that open to what it could be (i.e. whether we even know what "meaning" could come from "life"). atheists and theists alike.

mumbling in the corner too,
jaem

Heh.... I'll let it rest for now... I'm already in considerable danger of being an obnoxious pontificating windbag. (laugh... "he said 'pontificating'")

The 'questions' that people have been asking for thousands of years regarding the mysteries of life and the universe... (earth at the center of the universe, homunculus for where babies come from, why the sun 'rises', why tornados happen, who-begat-who, what a stroke is, what leprosy is, ghosts and spirits, devils and angels, evolution or the lack thereof, the four humors, blah blah blah...you can go on forever...) all has fallen by the wayside for the large percentage of reasonable people I think. (Well...mostly...some believe AIDS is a curse for example.) For some reason, people still reach out for the supernatural rather than simply investing that wonder and accepting the magic or unknown in nature itself... without some overreaching religious institution packpeddaling so fast its falling all over itself to fit new knowledge into its 'world view' (eg: intelligent design, etc) so it isnt expained into nonexistence... ...but again I digress mightily. I certainly continue to respect eveyones earnest and deeply held beliefs, Im not so big a goober that I believe I have the *any* of the answers, or indeed am capable of even framing any of the questions.

I think the answer is "42". Thats my answer and Im sticking with it. Apologies to Falling Leaf... really - I didnt mean to Hijack the thread...

Heh. You haven't hijacked at all... and call me Troy.

This is a good thread, after all. I've read everyone's posts and have agreed with some things and not with others (go figure), but I won't try and respond one-to-one because it's not that important to reinforce or repute any of them. But I do have some general thoughts, to the “feel” here.

There is a set of facts regarding religion. And by that I mean all religions. For example, if the Bible is dead wrong, and there is no God at all, then that is a fact. Period. I may not be able to prove it to anyone, because I can't prove a negative... and Christians may go on believing that there is a God, because that's what they've been told... but that doesn't change the fact that there is no God. The reverse would be true, of course: if there's a God, then that is a fact. And I as an atheist am wrong. Period.

So, my point in an earlier post about the "PC" thing is that in all other areas of our lives we can safely dispute people's beliefs about things that are factual. An example:

Anna says, "Water is dry."

I say to Anna, "no, water is wet."

Anna says, "you cannot prove to me that it's not dry."

To which I respond, "That's true, I can only prove that it's wet. I cannot prove the negative that it is not dry."

Anna says, "Ha!"

And I say, "You're an idiot."

And everyone agrees, and no one is offended. Well, except Anna... but in this case, she's an idiot, and no one cares.

(disclaimer: the "idiot" bit is for this example only, and I'm not even remotely calling anyone an idiot on the basis of his or her religion. How very PC of me, eh?)

Faith is the only area of our lives where the complete absence of proof and the utter vacuum of anything verifiable & empirical does not constitute plain old lunacy. The only one. And in fact, people of a particular faith will call others lunatics for their differing unverifiable and empirically unproven beliefs. “I think there’s a flying saucer behind Hale Bop, and if we drink poison Kool-Aid we’ll get to fly on it!” What’s so unreasonable about that, if you’re a Christian? That it can’t be proven? Well, prove it’s not true! Or, is it that suicide is forbidden in Christianity? Or that convincing people to kill themselves is against our set of laws (which are NOT largely Judeo-Christian, by the way, despite common postulation to the contrary)? But otherwise, what is the basis for discounting this belief, other than general skepticism and dismissal?

Isn’t the thing here, really, that faith is such a fragile thing to begin with that it can’t stand the rigor of any challenge, from either fact or contesting faiths? And isn’t it that fragile because it’s simply based 100%, part and parcel, on what we’re raised to believe, and on nothing that we would have deduced ourselves? I mean, if any Iowa Christian had been born in the inner city of Punjab, India, then there is pretty much a 0% chance that he would be anything other than a Hindi, and a similar 0% chance that he’d find Jesus and be saved later in life. So, what does he need to do? Believe in Hinduism. Just believe. I mean, when in Punjab, do as the Punjabbis, right? But what’s gonna happen when he dies? He’ll go to Hell, because he’s not a Christian, right? Does this not strike even Christians as so obviously situational and random that we might as well just concede, finally, that it's flawed?

OK, so… the last paragraph was not very PC of me. And what does that make me? Intolerant. Overbearing. Out of line. Offensive. And so be it. I could take the heat in return, you know. It's just that I haven’t ever really felt any, at least in terms of convincing arguments contrary to my views… unless you count the threat of some fiery damnation which I'm supposed to fear, the existence of which cannot be (dis)proven. But I've grown tired (and grow ever tired still) of having to sit back quietly and acquiesce to imposed opinions on this topic that I wholeheartedly dispute, particularly when the imposition has a material effect on what I must do, or how things pan out for me and mine (whole other topic there). And so, the End of Faith sounds an interesting proposition to me.

But what about that?

I will say from a social perspective that I agree with Anna completely on the role of faith in the woes of the world. No more blood has ever been spilled than for religious cause, and I don't see that trend slowing anytime soon. Nor does anything else cause zealotry to the degree which we see in religion. And let's not mince words; I'm not speaking of just Islam here, but of Judaism, Christianity, Paganism, Norse Mythology, all of it. The hands of the pious are bloody and hardened with it. So, what happens if religion were to disappear? Something else would almost certainly take its place, based on what little bit I know of human nature. Always something, right? Money, power, whatever. Or... would it? I mean, in the macro sense (I'm not talking about the Iowa Christian reading this), what other flag could possibly inspire such a consistent system of injustice and harm as religion? That would be a tall order, historically speaking. Perhaps there is no comparable compelling force as that. Let's hope not.

But for what it's worth, I for one would love to see a world devoid of faith in legends, where people might feel compelled to act as many of us do; in good spirit for the sake of the human spirit alone, for that the depth of the human spririt could be explored, and understood, and grown, instead of being discounted as a holding area adjacent to some fantasy afterlife.

T.

Damn, Troy, recently you have really been speaking eloquently about this and related issues lately. You seem to have a knack for presenting your complex thoughts without sacrificing a sense of resolution, and that apparently does not draw much fire here. Awesome.

That said, I think you've hit the nail on the head once again with the dissonance created by the spoon-feeding of religion to children from birth. Speaking from experience, I think it does something to the mind, this conditioning, whereby people are expected to believe things that demonstrably could not be true, and that sets them up for all sorts of manipulation from other quarters. In my opinion, it's the mindset itself that is dangerous (though we can't really blame people for having it, FTR). Everything else issues from that frame of reference, and is thus colored.

dude, i ALWAYS have my towel...

ahh. Thank goodness someone is more of a abject blow-hard than I am. (giggle)

I wouldnt agree with you on a variety of points... but this one, I think bears closer scrutiny. Of course blood has been spilled in the name of religion, but im not so sure that religion is the only, or even primary reason for bloodshed so your assertion is overstated I suspect at the least. I also dont believe abolishing religion would necessarily make things 'better'. Im inclined to think it most certainly would not. There are very valid and desirable social and political constructs that have their foundation in religious ideals... including America when you get right down to it. And of course, the spiritual fulfilment, strength, and hapiness of those that bask in the warm glow of their faith, this I would argue has a indeed a great deal of value. As a reminder, I am a 7th degree atheistic blackbelt of the worst (or best I suppose) order, but that does not mean I do not recognize the value religion plays in peoples lives, nor its overwhelming benefits to societies in general.

You are clearly hung up on (if I may appear insulting for a moment, I assure you that is not my intent) of refuting beliefs based on what you believe to be scientific evidence. Friend... let it go. 'God does not play dice', but schroedingers cat is real. You are bumping up against age-old questions... and I think suffering with them admirably. Please... keep at it. When you come up with the answers.... drop me a note - I would dearly love to hear them. Really.

The more I learn, the more I realize how much I do not know.

really.. Im bailing out.... I've been sucked down the bottomless pit of these types of discussions before...

enjoy, peace...

-S

Yeah, to be honest that does sound a bit didactic and, well... yes, that could be construed as insulting. Your tone sounds as if you're seeking to correct me, and yet you imply you don't know the answers. Not sure why you're taking that tact, but fine. I'm not particularly bothered by it.

But for my part, I do know the answers. And I didn't find them in a laboratory of pure science, though science plays its part to be certain. Logic is what's at work for me. And what I read, hear, see and smell in religion is by and large illogical. So, in the same way a Christian claims to know the Truth, I at least can claim to know this truth (small 't'): faith is without merit. PC be damned.

I did not, and do not, say that religion is the only cause of bloodshed; I'm not sure where you're reading that. But religion is the most prolific impetus to war. Read history books, and read the paper. Religion has driven more wars than anything else in history, including the desire for riches and land... though those things, I'm sure, are considerable factors in religious conquest as well (I do not believe in pure anything, so I'll concede that).

I flatly disagree with you about the value of religion to society, in your terms. The "benefits" of which you speak are from people's actions, from my actions by way of charity, community service, civic involvement and commerce. I do those things without religion in my life... and so could anyone else. The fact that others contribute and are religious is incidental, unless they require religion in order to be giving, in which case I say they are weak on their own and short-sighted in their own development. I submit that if society could learn to keep its actions honorable and its collective "soul" logical, we would witness true evolution en masse.

T.

All well said. Forgive my prior message, I was rushing out the door, which is always a mistake when trying to be clear. Its hard enough for me to compose a written thought, let alone convey actual meaning and intent. And stuff.

food for thought: (re: 'religion is the most prolific impetus to war ... Religion has driven more wars than anything else in history...')
http://www.army.mil/professionalwriting/vo...03/12_03_2.html
"it becomes apparent that those who make the claim "religion has been the cause of more wars than any other factor in history" may speak from ignorance or have ulterior motives for the assertion. " just an alternative point of view.

(even more tangential - but this also speaks to some of it is 'Guns Germs and Steel' http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fat...s/dp/0393317552 )

'I do those things without religion in my life... and so could anyone else.'
Excellent. Is it then so important from where someones motivation or wellspring of (perhaps) altruistic tendencies come?

'Faith is without merit'
That my friend, is where I think you and I disagree... the rest is fluff. If I understand you correctly that is. I dont think Political correctness has anything to do with it, though you have returned to that a couple of times...does it?

(didnt get a chance to get to Borders today to pick up that book...I suppose now I have little choice...)

I suppose that's a matter of opinion... but my own is that if I work hard at the office because I believe the Easter Bunny will eat my sister that I am perhaps productive but delusional. I believe that self actualization comes from knowing why we would do things, choosing our motivators, and acting. So, to answer your question: yes.



I say faith is without merit because, frankly, it's legend. To base one's life on legend is without merit, IMHO. Rather, base what you do on what you know to be true, on what you can see. And feel. And love.

My $0.02, anyway... if you offer a lower price I may take it. I am, after all, a realist.

EDITED TO ADD:



Well, that's interesting actually. I could be out to lunch, it wouldn't be the first time. However, you can google the topic and find an equal number of arguments for and against... so who knows. I probably shouldn't have put that forward, then, without knowing... so thank you for the link.

Also, I replied last night on 3 glasses of wine. Makes for interesting comments, now that I've re-read it.

ahh... the 3-cab message. Thats ok, keyboards dont slur.

First of all, I love this topic. To me, the understanding of the role of religion and where it came from will greatly shape where it goes. I'm an advocate for understanding the nature of being human, and for working on real issues for real progress vs. any issues (religion or otherwise) that are simply placeholders to another time or which are disguises for what should, or is, truly driving us. So, if I seem debative, it's because I care about the topic. Deeply.

As for the "war" bit, I just realized there is a semantics issue here. I should not have said that more wars have started in the name of religion; I should have stuck wtih my original wording, where I said that more blood has been spilled. That means within wars, by society acting on its own, honor-killings, lynchings, intolerance crimes, hate, protectionism. I stand strongly by that assertion, then. The Army page may be right.... more wars may have been started for other reasons... but Jesus was not killed in a war. He was killed in a persecution, along with countless others for the same reason. For thousands of years, for countless religions. More blood.

Exactly. You shine a light, as they saying goes... Most of the bullshit I referred to earlier in the thread is the result of complete ignorance, often intentional, of understanding how religions came to be, what purposes they served, and that they were invented prior to science and high levels of technology, etc. As such, they were influenced by the circumstances that created them. They are the equivilent of the human child's view, and we know so much more now than we did then. If more is known and understood at the individual level, instead of holding on to dogma like a petulant child holds onto a stuffed animal that has to go, then religion will begin to go in directions that are acceptable to us in these times, which are so radically altered from the days of the original invention. Discussions like these go a long way toward planting seeds to that end. Keeping silent, or keeping with the petulant holding on will only result, I believe, in the forced abolition of religions eventually. Or at least a very serious backlash to the fundamentalist inclinations that have been sweeping our planet in recent decades. It'll end in war and tears, I tell you.

its all fun and games until someone loses an eye (for an eye).

I seriously couldn't agree with you more. Particularly on the point of the good that can come from dialogue... I don't know that most people believe that, but I hope you (and people like you) keep on talking.

I always wonder what it is about dogma in particular that makes people feel so strongly that it should not ever be changed, no matter what, except when it suits them? I mean, if you can dismiss portions of a religion's dogma and call yourself a follower of it anyway (any unmarried Christians in the Orchard who've lost their virginity? Anyone that's gotten drunk... smoked weed... watched a porno... claimed slightly more deductions than you should have... played a game of poker for $20?), then why can't you dismiss all of it, or at least accept that others can? Why stand by particular tenants that you may feel are non-bending as if they would break the very fabric of society were they ignored? I suspect the answer lies in the human need to believe something, to have a cause of some kind, and that most people can't find it on their own in the everyday world... where, ironically, it's needed the most.

T.

I agree there, so what I'd like to do is sell people on the belief that the best we can hope for, and the most useful application of our energies is in pursuit of mutually assured survival. That means more than taking care of each other as humans. That means taking care of all of our co-species and our environment as well. There is so much salvation that needs to happen right here, for just tomorrow. Believe it, baby.

OK.. thats enough agreeing with each other you two... - ya big kool-aid drinkers you.

I bet you both would like this book, if you havent read it....
http://www.amazon.com/Demon-Haunted-World-...k/dp/039453512X

My copy arrived today! Have you finished it Troy?

Not yet.... my reading engine stalled.

Looks like this is a book that I will definitely put on my list.

I would like to comment here as a recovering dyed-in-the-wool Methodist. Asking questions was a no-no. Believing everything was the only way to Heaven. Revivals were the norm. Would I call my church evangelical? Can the reply be yes and no? In some ways it so very much so and in other ways not so much. I recall, as a child, attending revivals and battling inner feelings of guilt and fear at each altar call every night. Yet, I was saved, so why did I feel such guilt that I would go home terrified of dying sometime in the night and finding myself condemned to Hell. For a long time, I was afraid to ask why I had these feelings, and when I did, answers were not forthcoming. Then, there was all the biblical stuff. When I became old enough to notice/realize all the discrepancies (say the differences of the Gospels, the evil of the OT, who Lilith was) and started asking questions things became less rosie. Finally, I will never forget my utter shock when I finally understood that Jesus was a Jew and not a Christian. I was embarrassed and didn't share that revelation with anyone for a long, long time because I felt so stupid. I was sure I was only one who didn't put it all together.

I have not attended church in many years. Oh, I'll do the candlelight XMas eve service, however, I didn't attend the Easter service with my dad. Perhaps I should have simply for his sake, but I didn't. Maybe it's something I'll regret because so many of the other 'children' my age were in attendance and dad had no one there with him. Yeah, that's my guilt rearing it's ugly head. Not because of religion, but because of my ethics. Hopefully there will be another Easter.

My thoughts on religion after living the first 20 years of my life heavily influenced by it are that it is a war monger through and through. Who cares what, who, or if we believe? Does god truly care (for those of you who believe in her)? Is my religion or lack of really any one else's business? My mother is dead and gone. Do I think that I will see her again? Nope, she is with me EVERY single day in the lessons she taught me, in the ethics and morals she instilled in me, in the memories of her time with me.

I think I've written enough for now.

Cher

Wow, that really mattered to you? I was too stupid even further--I was shocked by the revelation that I was a Gentile. That hurt a little.

But what really hurt, and what was, despite my previous claims to be an angry atheist, what turned me into a sad atheist for a while, and later just a bored one, was the realization that the modern version of God is demonstrably Zeus. A former Catholic priest, who had been in attendance at Vatican Two, shared this with me and my classmates over the course of a semester. He knew this and did not lose his faith, but it was more than I could bare. Previously I just had suspicions about the lies, and enough of a knowledge of history, science and technology to guess at the improbability of it all. At that point I sacrificed the emotional investment and made a point to stop the habitual aspects, such as silent praying. I've lived with varying degrees of openness to religious ideas and concepts, and never been happier as when I finally admitted it was a load of man-made bunk and started living my life accordingly. What a weight was lifted!

I thought this a rather timely article, and one fitting to post within this thread:

OPINIONJOURNAL FEDERATION

True Unbelievers
A sectarian split among atheists.

BY CHRISTOPHER ORLET
Tuesday, May 1, 2007 12:01 a.m.

A recent Associated Press story, headlined "Atheists Split on How Not to Believe," has set fingers tapping throughout the blogosphere. The gist of the story as I read it is that there are soft atheists and fundamentalist atheists, and the softies are concerned that the fundies are becoming too outspoken, too uppity, indeed that they are giving unbelievers a bad name--a good trick that, like trying to give a bad name to an oil slick.
As usual, the impetus for this new development was 9/11, and the death and destruction caused by religious fanatics, after which some atheist intellectuals decided there was complicity in silence, thus they would be silent no more.

The spokesman for the soft atheists has been Greg Epstein, a "humanist chaplain" at Harvard University. The Rev. Mr. Epstein is encouraging the fundamentalists or "New Atheists" to pipe down, and warns that their outspokenness is keeping fence-sitters from coming over to the side of the humanists, a dubious allegation, at best. Though I can't prove it, it seems to me that passionate advocacy attracts converts as often as it drives them away.

The soft atheists have it in for three bestselling authors in particular: Richard Dawkins (author of "The God Delusion"), Sam Harris ("Letter to a Christian Nation") and Christopher Hitchens ("God Is Not Great"). Though they differ on many points of scripture, all three are passionately antireligious. Mr. Dawkins considers God "a psychotic delinquent." The doomsayer Mr. Harris thinks religion will destroy the world if not stopped, and Mr. Hitchens holds that "religion poisons everything." Mr. Epstein finds these authors rigid and intolerant, which ultimately makes them no different from the religious fundamentalists they condemn. Nor is he alone. As one English dean told the Guardian, Mr. Dawkins is "just as fundamentalist as the people setting off bombs on the tube."
Harvard's E.O. Wilson, another secularist, has also criticized the New Atheists, and suggests their tone is alienating important faith groups whose help is needed to solve the world's problems. "I would suggest possibly that while there is use in the critiques by Dawkins and Harris, that they've overdone it," Mr. Wilson told the AP.

Messrs. Epstein and Wilson have a point. Mr. Dawkins, et al., are intolerant. Mr. Hitchens, in particular, is intolerant of a great many things: Hypocrisy. Vacuity. Bad books. Henry Kissinger. He is especially intolerant of the multiculti Europeans, whom he considers too tolerant of intolerant Islamic fundamentalists. Though to expect an old pugilist like Hitch to ease up on believers would be like asking Joe Frazier to go easy on Mohammed Ali.

Certainly Messrs. Harris and Hitchens are no different from outspoken skeptics of yesteryear. "I see little evidence in this world of the so-called goodness of God," said H.L. Mencken nearly 75 years ago. "On the contrary, it seems to me that, on the strength of His daily acts, He must be set down a most stupid, cruel and villainous fellow." Writing half a decade earlier Col. Robert G. Ingersoll noted that "the Agnostic does not simply say, 'I do not know.' He goes another step and says with great emphasis that you do not know." In their day Mencken and Ingersoll were both widely jeered. They were also highly respected by their intellectual peers.

Are passionate atheists being unfairly demonized? Absolutely, if by labeling them "militant" and "fundamentalist" they are likened to terrorists who fly jets into buildings and wrapped in TNT saunter into crowded wedding receptions.
Still it is important to ask whether atheists--as alleged--are out to eradicate faith. And if so, in what manner? Mr. Epstein, sounding very much like a New Age shaman, insists that "Humanism is not about erasing religion. It's an embracing philosophy." That's a warm and fuzzy sentiment, but the fact is many atheists do long to see religion go the way of the coach-and-four--much like early Christians had no desire to embrace pagan religions--though most favor bringing future generations around not by the sword, but rather by reason, logic and scientific evidence.

But wouldn't the triumph of secularism mean the eradication of the basic tenets of Judeo-Christian society? Wouldn't it mean that the U.S. would evolve into a sort of United States of Sweden (Sweden being the world's most secular society)? America already allows abortion on demand and bans Christmas trees in airports--how much further down the secular slope could it go? Same-sex marriage could conceivably replace same-sex unions, but there seems little danger of a Soviet-style ban on religion, or the conversion of churches into horse stables. Secularism, after all, has not completely devastated Scandinavian societies. In fact, the greatest crisis these countries face is from their fundamentalist Muslim populations.

It was these fundamentalist Muslims that stirred the New Atheists and forced them to speak out. Now that they've seen what religious fanatics can do, I suspect there will be no silencing them.

Mr. Orlet writes the Existential Journalist blog.

Copyright © 2007 Dow Jones & Company, Inc. All Rights Reserved.

Original source: http://www.opinionjournal.com/federation/f...e/?id=110010010.

Cher

Jesus being a Jew didn't matter to me. MY stupidity in not realizing he was a Jew did. It proved what a sheep I was, and that's what hurt me the most, and made me determined to question, read and learn. Upon reflection, perhaps it wasn't such a bad thing as I've ended up being a much more tolerant, well-rounded individual.

Thanks, Annna.

Cher

I've picked this back up again. I have to say I'm impressed already that his views are open-minded but firm. That is, he certainly has a set of convictions about things, but he's careful not to discount people's spirituality in terms of learning about the Order of the Universe (my wording, not his), while he steadfastly discounts the dangerous suppositions that have evolved FROM people's spiritual learning. More to follow as I read more... I'm a super slow reader.

You, Belly? Already read it already?

Not yet. Made it through chapter 1. It is a heavy read! Anyway, I got sidetracked preparing paperwork for a new job I'm applying for, and also trying to get a decent review out of End of Paths over at CJs (THAT is so slow going, because the album alternates between wonderful and annoying). Anyway, I was thinking of picking it up again last night. I'll do that tonight.

My copy came today. I'm on duty this weekend, so hopefully I'll have plenty of serious reading time.

Alright, so.... I thought that Harris' views on the origins of faith, on the scientific arguments, on the cultural-historical recounting, etc. was all fine. Interesting, and well-researched (or at least it sounds that way). Though, as spr has noted above, this book is probably not going to convince many people of much. It's probably a bit of singing to the choir, I agree, but I personally find it to be interesting and important... I'm just not sure anyone's listening who isn't just looking for affirmation, perhaps like me.

But regarding his views on violence, particularly where it regards Islam, and the dangers that it presents to the world: alarmist tripe. Sweeping generalizations and a complete disregard for the human condition of not religious fervor but 1) abject poverty and/or 2) cultural defensiveness, where one's culture is attacked from any outside force, be it faith-based or otherwise. I hope that no one reads his views and starts eyeing Muslims (in particular) differently, because his assertions are unfair and, I believe, incorrect in large part. I seriously read too many specific items in such a category to list here. But in the end, what he writes sounds like a call to arms for a war against (here's the irony) anyone who would want to start or continue a war for faith. So, you pick your poison.

Overall rating:

Research and science: B
Social commentary: F

Anyone finish reading this?

Still working on it. Hope to post my thoughts soon.

Cher

i picked this book up last week. i told troy about it, not knowing of this thread's existence. he pointed me here, and i've read (or at leasted scanned) pretty much all the dialogue up til' now.

first, many long-time Apples may know me to be a religous person. well...things change. i'm not going into great detail here, but i finally "came out" as an atheist. it's been brewing for a while, and if you do want more detail, you can visit my mySpace blog, which is linked on my signature (i.e. dolla') at the bottom of this post. there's an entry titled "the end of faith," and it should shed sufficient light.

i read God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens directly before this, and both books have been such an encouragement. i didn't need these writings to finally cleanse me of my faith, but they certianly affirmed my decision.

the historical accounts in Harris' book are pretty damning. from the persecution of the Cathars, to Muhammed's taste for 9-yr.-old brides, Harris not only exposes all religion as man-made, but likewise shows the men who made it to be often less than savory characters.

i don't think you could ever have a world--or even a single society--where religioin or theism of any type is just out-and-out forbidden...but i do echo Harris' sentiment that all religous belief has to be fair game for criticism. we should, in the public forum, be able to affirm Theistic Creationism as ridiculous in the same way we would laugh a modern-day alchemist out of town. both views are tragically, exhaustively void of empirical evidence, and both deserve to be ignored (at best) by learned men and women.

i do somewhat disagree with Troy on the point of Harris' treatment of Muslims. while i certainly don't support more pre-emptive strikes around the globe (as Harris seems to flirt with at times), i do think that Islam is fundamentally unethical by any standard but its own. there's something to be said for poverty and defending one's culture, but poor people exist everywhere. and like Harris points out, many Islamic terrorists (in fact, all of the 9/11 hijackers) are middle-class, educated men. i don't think we should form lynch mobs and start rounding up the Muslims in our local communities. but i see nothing wrong in publicly affirming the aboslute wrong-ness of Islam wherever we find it.

overall, i think Harris does a good job. i do think he stretches his facts from time to time to make religion the culprit in nearly every historical bad thing. maybe he should be criticized for this. but should he be criticized as much as goofs like Jack Van Impe and Jenkins/LaHaye who try and make every newspaper headline correspond with a verse from Revelation? Probably not.

I mentioned this earlier, but anyone who found The End of Faith to be a good read should definitely check out God is Not Great by Christopher Hitchens. I will warn you, Hitchens is unapologetically one-sided. His book, I think, should really be viewed as more of an entertainment for current non-theists, rather than any transformative thesis for believers.

Hallelujah! Eh, well... so to speak. ;)



A fair point, except that I don't believe all the press releases about the motivation for much of the terrorism in the world (even those from the terrorists themselves). It is not about religion in many cases, but rather about land/power/oppression/economics/culture, and I think that Harris misses this point. If the Palestinians owned the land that is today Israel part and parcel, had a booming commerce, and had the rights to do their thing unimpeded, then they wouldn't be warring with the infidels in outlying lands. They wouldn't care enough about what you or I believe to come make a statement about it. Would there be exceptions? Sure. Bin Laden comes from money. The educated 9/11 terrorists were fighting for some sick cause, albeit one they believed was rooted in principle for their families and brethren... but I think that's brainwashing and/or pure fanaticism, characteristic of many cult groups outside of Islam. But, it also so happens that Muslims have poverty and livable land issues on a scale unlike any other single demographic (even the demographic of "African," since so many on that continent are in fact Muslims), and I believe that "Islam!" is simply a good rallying cry with which to wage war for the relief of those more practical issues. Harris, to me, sounds pitted against the religion of Islam in particular, whereas to me the religion itself is no more illogical and dangerous than any other religion whose basis starts with faith, and which ensures that faith via violent enforcement. Which, Harris does recount correctly, is pretty much all of 'em.

I agree about Harris' particular disdain for Islam. I likewise think it's fair to say that Islam is no more dangerous and illogical than other similar religions...at least potentially no more dangerous.

I'm going to compare/contrast Islam and Christianity here, but we could fill in the blank with other monotheisms. I'm using these two for familiarity's sake.

Killings and violent injustices on a massive scale have occurred in the name of Christianity and Islam throughout human history. They are both guilty of imperialistic conquest (Crusades, Muslim campaigns), of purges (witch trials and inquistions, Taliban rule), and both have kept anti-semitism alive and well around the globe, and on about an equal scale.

However...

While the Old Testament documents innumerable killings of polytheistic non-Hebrews, and while there are instructions to kill fellow Hebrews if they apostasize, there is really nothing comparable in Christian literature to the repeated explicit edicts to go abroad and slaughter "infidels" like what is found in the Koran and other Muslim holy books. I totally agree that brainwashing plays a big part in the number of loonies blowing themselves up these days...but the Koran does specifically say that Heaven is both more readily attainable and more enjoyable for martyrs and their families. I think Troy is mostly right about the difference we'd see in Palestine if their land wasn't being stolen from them on a daily basis, and Israeli gunships weren't gunning down their children in the streets. But countries like Oman, Yemen, and Egypt all have relatively high standards of living...and all have produced plenty of terrorists. Again, I totally concede the point that when living conditions improve, the spark of religion has a more and more diminutive powder keg to ignite. But I do see the logic in singling out Islam (at least in some contexts) as an especially dangerous force regardless of the financial situations of its adherents.

Any casual student of European history could go on for hours listing the horrific injustices perpetrated by the Church since its inception. However, as literacy spread and sound literary criticism slowly made its way into the world of hermeneutics and exegesis, the church gradually lost any foothold in terms of being able to say, "You have to do/not do this because God says so." And, like we've mentioned, as economies improved across the Continent, the Church became transformed from a real political power to vestigal cultural memorabilia. Sure, the State supports the church financially in England (Church of England) and pretty much all of Scandanavia (Lutheran), but the huge majority of all those countries' citizens are non-religious. It's in this regard that Islam seems different to me. Even in the most affluent Muslim countries in the world you find wells of fundamentalism. For that matter, even in non-Muslim Western countries you find resident Muslims with direct ties to terrorism (cf. the recent arrests in London of several Muslim doctors).

Again, I don't want a culture or mindset that fosters constant profiling and oppression of all Muslims. But think of it this way: if Harris' book had been written in 1943, it might have had just as much negative to say about Christianity, but maybe instead of lambasting Islam, he would've singled out (which he does on a very limited basis, actually) Shinto Buddhism. And who couldn've blamed him? As it turns out, America did go all paranoid and lock up thousands of Japanese for no reason, and that was terrible. There's no justification for it. However, were there manifold reasons (at the time) to be wary of things stemming from Shinto and Japanese nationalism? Of course. You'd have to be suicidal, delusional, or just plain ignorant to say otherwise. That's not an indictment against every living Japanese person, it's just recognizing the facts for what they are. And today, though our enemy isn't usually the homogenized soverign state variety (or at least we're not in Iran yet), our main enemies around the globe are, essentially, followers of the same religion. Thus, while I would not say (as Harris does) that we're at war with Islam, I would say that we'd be monstrously careless to disregard the inexorable link between Islamic doctrine and the plans of our enemies.

today's my last day at work... I think in the midst of the coming 2 weeks of packing, I may finally have to crack this Sam Harris book open (along with Gary Lenaire's Why Sincere Believers Lose Faith)...

~fff

First of all, you should be a writer. You scribble very well, and know lots of big words and stuff.

I actually agree with pretty much everything you wrote. The Japanese/Shinto comments illustrate my point actually, and I think we're in agreement... maybe I'm just wording it badly. What I'm saying is that, yes, the Shinto focus in the 40's would have gotten to the problem at hand, which was the Japanese as a nation (read that: the problem is that we were at war and were being overly cautious, which is the safe play if not purely unfair). In the same way, going after Islam today will get to the problem too, which is to say that we'd get to the Muslims that are also terrorists. However, two things come to mind for me with this argument: 1) the baby-with-the-bathwater argument, because while a duck is a bird, a bird is not a duck, and more specifically, 2) Islam is simply the religion of the moment whose disciples' beliefs -- based on their culture and lifestyle and poverty, in many cases -- is most incongruous with what we, as Westerners, (very) generally believe and how we (very) generally choose to live.

The idea that "Islam" as a religion and on its own is the root of the problem misses the point that "Islam" is just the rallying cry for radicals with other agendas. This is, IMHO, completely irrespective of the dogma found in the Q'uran, which can be accepted or blown off by its followers just as any other written dogma -- whether that dogma comes from the Bible ("kill the Washington Redskins for touching the skin of a pig?") or the Torah (where slavery is not only accepted but advocated). In another time and another place, looking back or going forward, some other religion was/will be the oppressed one, or the one that was/is most outside the box of whichever culture is the big kid on the block (i.e., the West, today). And as such, radicals within who are seeking to make right preceived injustices will rally those "under oppression" with the heading of "God."

But what Harris does, in my opinion, is to purport that Islam is so violent in its dogma that it stands out as the worst of the lot, and I reject that out of hand. All dogma is accepted or rejected by a religion's disciples based on their circumstances and culture ("I believe in God, and believe in Hell, and I have sex with my boyfriend... but that's OK because I love him"). Circumstance and culture make radical Muslims the most dangerous lot at the moment. But Islam, on its own, is no more dangerous that Christianity or Judaism. The latter of which, as I recall, Harris refers to as a "fair and just religion," and he further states that Israel is a well-tempered, fair neighbor to Palestine. I believe that notion needs some further thought, and it gives good insight to Harris' quite biased position on the makeup of his topic.


.

totally. i think this is a point that Harris misses as well. it's not like Islam popped up out of nowhere and started making people misbehave. there had to be a bad person (or persons) to found a bad religion. the hebrews wanted more land, but they had to kill a lot of people first. so they wrote a book explaining how god told them to kill and take more land. mormonism is another great example. there have always been racist polygamists, but Joseph Smith was "smart" enough to organize an entire religion to justify his despicable lifestyle. in the same way, Muhammed had gripes with the religious status quo of his day, and so he arranged to have new truths "revealed" to him. incidentally, it's actually pretty likely that Joseph Smith used Muhammed's revelatory "experience" as a template for his own.

by missing this point, smith (somewhat ironically) misses a great butress for his thesis, i.e., the existence of religion and religious people will always serve as a tool for the less scrupulous to get what they want. i don't want to swindle you of your savings to buy a yacht, i want to make your life better by providing you with a way to demonstrate your faith and thus be rewarded. i'm not a sexual deviant, it's just god's will that i take 7 wives and populate the earth with more souls for heaven. i'm not a small-minded biggot, god has revelaed to me that fact that non-whites are demon-spawn. etc, etc, etc, etc.

This book sounds like it could sum up the past three years of my life. I may have to read this as well, Dan.

Very interesting conversation happening there between Troy and James. I still haven't finished the book, by the way. Got about halfway through and then got busy with wedding plans. That said, I did pick up on Harris picking on Islam, and I agree that he missed the point, even as he heads in the right direction. There's something, though, that I don't think either Troy or James are taking into consideration, and that is their proximity to one side--the Western side.

The Koran does contain all sorts of imperatives to violence for completely unreasonable events, such as a different faith, etc. And yes, James is correct that the Bible contains similar imperatives that are no longer followed. However, I think what's happening with Islam most recently (and by that I mean the last 50 years or so)--which is a specific fundamentalist movement--parallels a similar movement in at least American Christianity. These two sides have been in a race very much like that we found ourselves in in the cold war. Who can get there faster? Who can be the truest faith, the most willing to back up their convictions, regardless of cost, the fastest? You see the violence of Islam mirrored in events like abortion clinic bombings, that Rudolph character, etc.

The only reason we are "losing" that race (which is really winning in a way) is because we have had cultural forces of modernity and cultural movements like feminism that have made embracing biblical ways laughable to the majority of the population. And because our unique system was founded on rebellion from religion, our people are less inclined to sacrifice their lives to religious tenets. Islamic countries by and large have no such rebellion to look back to. These countries achieved mighty things, to be sure, but they never fully escaped tribalism, and that is why so many are so ready to go back to it. What's going on in the world today is less a conflict of Islam vs Christianity, or East vs West, but rather modernity vs tribalism. This is a cultural, economic, and natural resource conflict. It's systemic. As the population of the world grows, it will only get worse. It's that conflict--modern vs tribal, in the context of a global population explosion, that make this a situation that cannot be addressed by dissolving religion alone. Religion is just one of those false systems that can throw a monkey wrench in any search for a solution. That's why it must be nullified, globally, using reason and liberal values like egalitarianism and equality.

That's a fresh perspective, and one with which I agree... in fact, re-reading it a couple of times, it seems that our ideas support one another (all three of us, really).

The dissolution of Islam (or any religion for that matter) would certainly take away some of the fuel for the fire, but it would do nothing (continuing the metaphor) to quell the need for heat. The folks on each sides of the lines would find some other thing to war over in order to win what they're really after: remedy for matters of practicality or perceived righteousness. Land. Resources. Freedom. And Anna, I think it's very observant of you to see that the lines of perception re: the victims vs. the oppressors is drawn between tribal and modern groups... that hadn't occured to me.

So, what's the lesson? Successful capitalism levels the playing field? I read an article the other day about Sharia-compliant investing, and modernity in the middle east leading to the Westernization of societies there... call me an oppressor, then, but the sooner the better, eh?

Anna your insight on tribalism vs. modernism is indeed interesting. Even though Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Oman, etc. all have modern metropoli (is that the plural?) with manifold ammenities, the true fabric of all of those societies is probably still found in the tribal extended families...that were oppresively patriarchal long before any mention of Muhammed.

And that leads me to a point Harris touches on that I find fascinating. One of the great tools for fighting the plagues stemming from antiquated religious systems is green energy. Imagine if tommorow crude oil were $5/barrel. The already silken-thin veil would be torn from the eyes of anyone who isn't appalled at what fundy Islamic governments perpetrate everyday. Everyone--from the most public official to the most obscure schmo--would acknowledge the insult to civilization that is religious rule without fear of any decrease in oil production and the accompanying crippling economic symptoms. Some may be tempted to say, "but what of the citizens of these Islamic republics? wouldn't they be crippled economically." after i finished laughing for a good half-hour, i would simply ask said objector if they really thought oil revenues in these countries were mostly subsidizing the good of the common wo/man. when a Saudi prince has a $5 million dollar wedding reception, i don't think i'll lose any sleep over the fact that the oil under his feet is suddenly worthless. when the sultan of Brunei can no longer pay Western models $10,000/day to be in his harem (i'm not making that up), i find it hard to fathom that i'd bat an eyelash at his ecomonic ruin. And I have to believe that the sweltering denizens of these republics would (even if ever so slowly) see how their faith had been used against them. to oppress them. and maybe--just maybe--they'd see that they were really better off without it.

the smarter (and more modern) of these countries are already moving forward anyway. the UAE knows their oil will be gone in less than 40 years, and are scrambling to make their country the new tourist hot-spot for all of Asia (and so far, it's working). Imagine that. An Islamic, middle-Eastern country that is not only safe for Westerners (and others, for that matter), but is openly welcoming the "intrusion" of capitalistic forces to usher its society into the 21st century. They don't want to blow up Israel or the Great Satan, they're just trying to make the UAE a better place for the people who live there. it's far from paradise. some women still wear burkahs, and there are gender-specific shopping centers...but it's progress, at least.

You know, I share your dis-ease with the idea of forcing modern political and economic systems on people, but I also share your opinion that it's to an extent necessary. But know that it's gonna hurt us in the immediate as much as it will hurt them, because it means we will have to relinquish some of our claims to wealth that we aren't entitled to. But I think in the long run it can, with careful planning and plenty of finesse, benefit all of humanity. I know, it's a crazy dream...blame John. He's not the only one.

Anyway, it's already happening, as James said, and thanks for your excellent points, James. I know you aren't making that up about the Sultan of Brunei, because I've seen documentary footage of a couple of women who visited him. I think one thing all of the pundits and politicians overlook is the need for a vibrant women's movement within predominantly Islamic countries. It's happened to an extent in India, but hasn't succeeded much in trickling out to surrounding countries, and hasn't taken hold much within Islamic communities within India. I'm at a loss for how to start it, but I bet that alone would do way more than arming one faction against another.

Anyway, just some more rambling thoughts. Awesome turn in this discussion.

just ran across THIS and thought it to be good supplementary material for this discussion. I grew up in a church where Rev. Warren was thought very highly of, so these were very interesting insights for me.

I also watched THIS and thought it was the best I'd heard Harris articulate his argument(s). In fact, Anna's points regarding tribalism, etc. come up about 1 hr. into the debate. Yeah, it's kinda long...but if you have the time, i found it worthwhile.





*edited to add 2nd link*