The Virus Of Faith?

Richard Dawkins is the world's most famous out-of-the-closet living atheist. He is also the world's most controversial evolutionary biologist. Publication of his 1976 book, "The Selfish Gene," thrust Dawkins into the limelight as the handsome, irascible, human face of scientific reductionism. The book provoked everything from outrage to glee by arguing that natural selection worked its creative powers only through genes, not species or individuals. Humans are merely "gene survival machines," he asserted in the book.

Dawkins stuck to his theme but expanded his territory in such subsequent books as "The Blind Watchmaker," "Unweaving the Rainbow," and "Climbing Mount Improbable." His recent work, "The Ancestor's Tale," traces human lineage back through time, stopping to ponder important forks in the evolutionary road.

Once again, evolution is under attack. Are there any questions at all about its validity?

It's often said that because evolution happened in the past, and we didn't see it happen, there is no direct evidence for it. That of course is nonsense, in the story of evolution, the clues are a billion-fold.

In his latest work, which made me reach for my blood pressure medicine, the dubbed "Darwin's Rottweiler" Dawkins, calls religion a "virus" and faith-based education "child abuse" in a two-part series he wrote and appears in that begins airing on the UK's Channel 4, beginning tomorrow evening. Dawkins explains why God is a delusion, religion is a virus, and America has slipped back into the  Dark Ages.

Entitled "Root of All Evil?," the series features the atheist Dawkins visiting Lourdes, France, Colorado Springs, Colo., the al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem and a British religious school, using each of the venues to argue religion subverts reason.

In "The God Delusion," the first film in the series, Dawkins targets Catholicism at the pilgrimage site in Lourdes. "If you want to experience the medieval rituals of faith, the candle light, the incense, music, important-sounding dead languages, nobody does it better than the Catholics," he says.

Dawkins, using his visit to Colorado Springs' New Life Church, criticizes conservative U.S. evangelicals and warns his audience of the influence of "Christian fascism" and "an American Taliban."

The backdrop of the al-Aqsa mosque and an American-born Jew turned fundamentalist Muslim who tells Dawkins to prepare for the Islamic world empire – and who clashes with him after saying he hates atheists – rounds out the first program's case for the delusions of the faithful.

In part two, "The Virus of Faith," Dawkins attacks the teaching of religion to children, calling it child abuse.

"Innocent children are being saddled with demonstrable falsehoods," he says. "It's time to question the abuse of childhood innocence with superstitious ideas of hellfire and damnation. Isn't it weird the way we automatically label a tiny child with its parents' religion?"

"Sectarian religious schools," Dawkins asserts, have been "deeply damaging" to generations of children.

A provocative critique by BBC's Christian Bodart:

He thinks that people who choose to believe that the Universe is accidental are 'bright' rather than over-confident in Mankind's Understanding of the Universe, he careful co-opts agnostics (who may or may not be 'bright' but are certainly humble enough to grasp some of Humanity's limitations).

He also describes the Universe as potentially too 'queer' to understand. Again an interesting and telling choice of word though a more telling revelation of Dawkins' simultaneous ability to be incredible insightful and as entirely blind as his Watchmaker simultaneously.

Because, of course, should the Universe be genuinely beyond our comprehension then the very mystics and religious folk he constantly, and unfairly, derides are (yet again) right thousands of years before the Messiah of Social Dawkinism managed to grasp such a simple yet elusive and mysterious concept via his incomplete understanding of our entirely incomplete understanding of Theoretical Physics. Most of the rest of us have been able to stare at the sky and echo those immortal Words of Shakespeare that begin - "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio" in silent contemplation of the vasteness of Space and our simultaneous ability to see so much of it and know so little of the same.

Madeline Bunting, a columnist for the Guardian, who reviewed the series, wrote:

There's an aggrieved frustration that [atheist humanists] have been short-changed by history – we were supposed to be all atheist rationalists by now. Secularization was supposed to be an inextricable part of progress. Even more grating, what secularization there has been is accompanied by the growth of weird irrationalities from crystals to ley lines. As G.K. Chesterton pointed out, the problem when people don't believe in God is not that they believe nothing, it is that they believe anything.

Dawkins, perhaps best known for his much-cited comment that evolution "made it possible to be an intellectually satisfied atheist," says in a commentary he authored for the Belfast Telegraph on the eve of his program's premiere, apparently directed to John Lennon: "Religion may not be the root of all evil, but it is a serious contender. Even so it could be justified, if only its claims were true. But they are undermined by science and reason. Imagine a world where nobody is intimidated against following reason, wherever it leads. "You may say I'm a dreamer. But I'm not the only one."

Interesting how someone can be so infuriating, isn't it?

Patrick O'Hannigan writes his own take on the "The Credulity of Richard Dawkins": "Thinking people can spot a fallacy without even moving beyond Dawkins' itinerary: contrary to his implicit assumption, all religions are not the same...."

Josh Minton, prompted by the Dawkins theory explains his own view at length: " Intelligence thinks wide and focuses small while ignorance thinks small and focuses wide.....God is not in the details but rather beyond them."

Related Posts on ATB: 'Is The Holy Trinity A Doctrine Of Monotheism', Who Is Eligible For Salvation, The Power And Privilege Of Prayer, Theology Matters, The Declaration of War on Christmas, One True God Blog

Comments

[clark bowens]

sick man

[MonkeyJim]

It's a shame many of those outraged by Dawkins book seem to have failed to actully read it. I'm outraged by the bible, but at least I had the decency to read it first.

[William T. Dawkins]

Historically, it has been the mission and aspiration of many to seek the truth. All have postulated theories but the truth remains elusive and imaginary. From birth those who try to impose on them their ideas and beliefs regarding truth subject our children to mass confusion while the truth remains a phantom. This is "The Virus of Faith" I believe Professor Dawkins refers to.

I for one agree! I believe that if one could go back and eliminate a lifetime of implanted falsehoods that finding the truth might become much easier, perhaps even self evident.

But then I am also a Dawkins.

[Shawn R. W.]

Dawkins "The Root of All Evil?" reciprocates a new revolution for humanity.

[Kenny Pierce]

I thought I'd pass on a very insightful comment about Job that somebody left on my blog anonymously.

The commenter, responding to my claim that Job shows that Job is very silly to think he knows enough to be able to criticize God's behavior, observes acutely:

don't forget, god didn't just chew job out for presuming to know better, he also chewed out those friends of his who said "well, job, it must have been something YOU did."

god basically said "you jerks don't have any more right than he does to try and explain it away, or to blame him - i know what you're all doing, you're trying to second-guess me, and that doesn't work."

That's a fabulous point.

Of course then, being myself, I got excited by the comment and yammered on at great length in reply, but I won't impose my reply on y'all's patience.

[Ken Pierce]

Stefan,

You and Alexandra will very much enjoy this true anecdote.

Years ago I agreed to teach the junior high Sunday School class in the small Episcopal church we attended at the time. There were seven or eight kids, and every single one of them deeply resented the fact that their parents were making them come to church. So after precisely one session Dessie and I threw the Sunday School curriculum out, and over the following weeks we set to work trying to find a way to get them to actually engage and talk to us about something that mattered to them.

"Why," I asked them one morning, "do you think people don't want to be Christians?" Of course I meant, "Why don't you want to be Christians?" but I figured we would let them discuss the trusty old Hypothetical Junior High School Student rather than themselves.

The answer came back instantly from all sides of the table. "Because Christians don't have any fun."

Now, I can pretty much guarantee that nobody in my high school enjoyed high school more than I and my friends did, despite the fact that we followed the Christian rules pretty faithfully (I wasn't sure Christianity was true at the time but I knew my parents were good folks and I didn't want to upset them). And my parents were an absolute blast -- I was deeply envied by every friend I had except for one, and his friends were hilariously neat people as well...and were also extremely devout Christians. In fact a solid majority of the people I knew who were genuinely enjoying life, were devout Christians. But I restrained the urge to start chuckling and instead asked seriously, "So why can't Christians have any fun?"

Again the answer was fired back without hesitation: "Because they aren't allowed to sin."

"Okay, so, they aren't allowed to sin...like, how?"

They're stumped. They stare back at me in confusion. I try to clarify.

"I mean, what are some of the sins that Christians aren't allowed to commit?"

They can't come up with anything.

"What I mean is, there are fun things Christians aren't allowed to do because those things are sins, right?"

"Right!" No hesitation.

"So, what's one of those fun things Christians aren't allowed to do?"

Silence.

In desperation, I say, "Okay, look, just tell me something that is fun. I don't care whether Christians are allowed to do it or not, just tell me something fun."

They furrow their brows in concentration, and then one girl says, "Well, I think getting drunk is probably fun, but I haven't tried it yet."

I thank her very sincerely. "Okay, so, getting drunk is maybe a fun thing. What else?"

There's a silence, and then somebody suggests, "Maybe driving out in the country and hitting mailboxes with baseball bats?"

And I'm thinking to myself, "Number one, you guys are having me on. But number two...hell, you guys might as well be Christians; you ain't havin' any fun anyway."

[Stefan]

Ken,
Thank you sir, I am glad you concur. As you say, the world of the atheist (the intellectually consistent kind) contains no “absolute” common ground when it comes to morality and is crippled when ethical disagreements in a society emerge. In our society we appeal to each other’s understanding (which we take for granted) of fairness, duty, honor, respect, honesty, etc. because we feel that if we can reasonably and logically convince the other that they have wronged us that they will concede the point (ideally) because we all basically know and play by the same rules. These rules transcend all parties and therefore there is no authority which is “above the law”. This is absolutely essential in order for there to be “inalienable” human rights. If there were even one human form of authority on this planet that could trump this transcendent “legal framework” the whole "system" would break down. Human freedom is often misunderstood as meaning “license”, but the great paradox is that the only way humans will ever truly be free is if they submit themselves to the eternal laws which are designed to bring about the “Peace of Order” (as St. Augustine called it). This was a constant theme of John Paul II (here paraphrased by George Weigel):

“Freedom untethered from truth is freedom’s worst enemy. For if there is only your truth and my truth, and neither one of us recognizes a transcendent moral standard (call it "the truth") by which to adjudicate our differences, then the only way to settle the argument is for you to impose your power on me, or for me to impose my power on you. Freedom untethered from truth leads to chaos; chaos leads to anarchy; and since human beings cannot tolerate anarchy, tyranny as the answer to the human imperative of order is just around the corner. The false humanism of the freedom of indifference leads first to freedom’s decay, and then to freedom’s demise.”

I think that many people (myself included) struggle painfully with the desire to be in control of ourselves. It has often deeply angered me that I know that I must give up what I want because it contradicts what God has told us is True about the world. I don’t want to give it up and that causes a deep and sometimes painful spiritual struggle. In the culture of the all-American individualist we are constantly told that everything is “up to me” from my hamburger toppings to my moral preferences. It turns out, however, that the real “radical life-style” is the one that gives up itself for others. I like to be a “good guy” but part of me wants to hold some things back for myself. This is the key to why atheists see the Christian as weak. They are “followers” who deny themselves not “leaders” who get all they can take. The language of Capitalism can feed this and so it must be disciplined by morality. Pope Benedict XVI summed up my (our) struggle nicely: "Man nurtures the suspicion that God, at the end of the day, takes something away from his life, that God is a competitor who limits our freedom and that we will be fully human only when we will have set him aside …There emerges in us the suspicion that the person who doesn't sin at all is basically a boring person, that something is lacking in his life, the dramatic dimension of being autonomous, that the freedom to say 'no' [to God] belongs to real human beings.”

[Ken Pierce]

Stefan,

Note the relevance to your post of some of the Emma Goldman quotes given above:

Do not all theists insist that there can be no morality, no justice, honesty or fidelity without the belief in a Divine Power?

No; what your theist truly, and you as well, Stefan, do say is that while a person can certainly choose to act morally, justly, honestly and faithfully as an atheist, he can have no grounds for insisting that others do so as well that do not in the end reduce to, "Because I say so," i.e., to an arbitrary value system based on the personal tastes of the atheist himself.

Based upon fear and hope, such morality has always been a vile product, imbued partly with self-righteousness, partly with hypocrisy. As to truth, justice, and fidelity, who have been their brave exponents and daring proclaimers? "Vile?" Who says fear, hope, self-righteousness and hypocrisy are "vile" things, and why should we pay any attention when they do? "Brave" and "daring"? Who says truth, justice, fidelity, bravery and daring are good things, and why should we pay any attention when they do? I mean, I by and large agree that fidelity is good and hypocrisy is bad, and I can do so in an intellectually consistent manner; but then I think the universe is, by design and by the character of its Designer, an intrinsically moral place; and Emma thinks that that particular postulate makes me "vile."

The woman is scarcely able to utter six consecutive words without indulging in question-begging epithets, the invariable recourse of the intellectually flaccid and indolent, and she thinks Thomas Aquinas was a moron?

[Ken Pierce]

Stefan,

That is an outstanding comment, with a half-dozen or so points that are not only (IMHO) right on target, but also very elegantly phrased indeed. I'm in full agreement: an atheist living morally is an admirable person despite his regrettable philosophical opinions; but an atheist who is pissed off at religious people for not following his version of morality (which is the vast majority of the noisy ones) and at the same time sneers at the religious for their stupidity and intellectual naivete, is just a bad joke.

That really was a great comment. "They are incapable of remaining true to their atheism because they take for granted the basic moral framework of Christianity...If they are asked to 'logically' construct a morality relying only on the raw facts of the meaningless world they profess they immediately proceed to inject it with meaning..." -- just a great comment.

[Stefan]

Ken,
Your point is well taken and I agree that it is nice that atheists often act in a manner that makes them productive members of society and are often quite friendly folks. I put a bit of a fine point on that but it was directed towards the atheist who claims that God is the last refuge of the scoundrel and that the religious person is clinging to the skirts of archaic concept. This kind of hard-nosed atheist sees religion as the main source of violence and conflict throughout history and claims that clearheaded and reasonable non-believers have “grown-up” and discovered the most effective way to organize society if only the unwashed superstitious masses would finally let them lead. This is silly. What I meant by their being “foolish” is that they remain so clueless on how much they depend on the morality of Christianity and they can’t even see it. They arrogantly profess that their “altruism” and their moral codes are self-discovered, self-assembled, man-made, and therefore truly liberating and superior. They are incapable of remaining true to their atheism because they take for granted the basic moral framework of Christianity. When they do act out the true implications of atheism then we have reeducation camp, gulags, and heaps of corpses. When you say that the atheist could derive: “pleasure from others' happiness and sorrow from their pain, and in that case the rational thing for him to do is to behave altruistically” that is, of course, true but he would have no grounds to condemn someone who derives pleasure from others pain. In effect they are impotent and their beliefs only allow them to govern themselves. If they are asked to “logically” construct a morality relying only on the raw facts of the meaningless world they profess they immediately proceed to inject it with meaning. This is a fatal flaw in their world view so they should at the very least be honest (oh no there another is a noble virtue they must accept) and admit it instead of stomping around with their noses in the air.

[Ken Pierce]

Stefan,

An altruistic atheist is really a fool....or a hypocrite. I understand your point, but I think I have to say that, in the most important and natural sense, I couldn't disagree more. What an altruistic atheist is, is intellectually inconsistent. An altruistic atheist is somebody whose head is messed up but whose heart is not completely lost. Insofar as he is a fool, it is because he is an atheist, not because he's an altruist.

The beliefs of your heart, not the beliefs of your head, define your character and shape your actions. An altruistic atheist has perhaps not followed out the consequences of his philosophy to their natural end; but then would you want him to? Besides, even if he recognizes that his altruism is arbitrary, still, it's perfectly possible that he is somebody who derives pleasure from others' happiness and sorrow from their pain, and in that case the rational thing for him to do is to behave altruistically (and if I sound like Ayn Rand talking of "rational self-interest," well, I have no problem with that). So that isn't hypocritical and it isn't irrational; and it's a good thing that he's that kind of person.

But now the moment the atheist ceases to be content with living altruistically himself and starts insisting that other people have to disinvest from South Africa or accept a reduction in their own living standards for the sake of the environment or go without fur coats because of animal rights or vote for the Democratic Party because the Republicans are enslaved to Evil Big Business -- the moment he starts acting as though his moral code is valid for other people -- then screw him, he's a fool and a hypocrite. ;-)

[Stefan]

The problem of evil in the world is, to my mind, the easiest of all!! We were created free and freedom means we are free to love our neighbors or kill them. End of story. If we had no choice we would be like little wind-up toys and there would be no such thing as free-will. God created us for himself and wishes us to love him as he loves us but love cannot be coerced; rather it must be given freely or it is not truly love. If we are freed to be loving creatures then we are also free to love ourselves instead, reject God, and embrace the evil that comes from that choice. Pride comes before the fall. As GK Chesterton says: “original sin… [is] the only part of Christian theology which can really be proven.” Why this is so complex I have no idea because it has always seemed clear to me. The way to understand the evils of the natural world is to understand the earth not as our "mother" but rather as our "sister" for she is fallen as well. Fallen creatures in a fallen world we are.

As for atheism, it often makes me chuckle when atheists call on others to create a “just” society or to treat others with "respect", etc., etc. If there is no god then: “screw you” and while I'm at it “screw everyone BUT me”. That is the most logical and reasonable attitude one could come to. If the sum total of life is physical and the spiritual dimension of man is a sham then it is “once around the ride” and you better take what you can get or you miss out. Sorry. The ideal of love is unmasked as nothing but lust. If there is no higher moral authority to which we may appeal our differences then all that is left is raw power. Me against you. Why “sacrifice” for family, society, country, or anything but my own wishes? An altruistic atheist is really a fool....or a hypocrite. Ah yes...that's the ticket!! The pop atheist proclaims that there is no higher morality and then proceeds to profess one largely borrowed from Christians (but often conveniently tailored to fit their “lifestyle”). I challenge any atheist to explain why it is “wrong” to kill another human being without referencing God or appealing to some overarching moral authority. Arguing that “We” have agreed that murder should be illegal (cultural convention) is not the same as saying it is actually “wrong”. Such laws would be nothing more than societal agreements with no foundation in Reality (capital intended) and may be discarded at any time. If the state is the “giver” of rights then it can just as well take them away and the honest atheist has no logical reason to object. Maybe there is some Darwinian reason that we have genetically evolved to be “unfavorable” towards killing because it benefits the species...but then, correct me if I am wrong, if human dignity has no REAL meaning outside of its utilitarian function, and now that we have that little trick figured, out wouldn’t we be fools to keep following this mindless farce of nature? One that causes us to waste our valuable and fleeting lives by tricking us into wasting them in the attempt to live up to "ideals" that are merely illusions? Very few people who profess to be atheists really live as if there were no God, but some really have......

"Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed." — Voltaire

The history of the 20th century has proven Voltaire a fool.

[Ken Pierce]

Mike,

You didn't offend, at all. "Tired" is not the same thing as "mad." ;-) I was just looking at all those quotes and thinking, "Oh, Lordy, just one sentence for each will take an half hour."

It's nice to have your intent clarified, though -- I wasn't sure what to make of your comment because at first it looked like an attempt to say, "There's no God because all these smart people are atheists." But then I got to looking at it in more detail a little while ago and thought, "Man, that can't really be it, because he can't be that clueless." I mean, nobody in their right mind who wants to convince somebody of atheism, uses Murray O'Hare as an authority -- especially by quoting her as talking about "solving her own problems" and raising her children not to believe in God. Or how could anybody quote Diderot's bon mot and not expect people instantly to remember Robespierre's attempt to put Diderot's agenda to practical effect...

But if what you're trying to say is just, "Lots of people are absolutely determined not to believe in God and intend to make life hard for those who do..." Well, amen to that, brother.

[mikeomatic]

Quite so. Didn't mean to offend. I'm just warning you of something you probably already know: that true believers, in a world like this, have a long hard road ahead of them.

At least they believe in something. I've known a lot of people about whom I couldn't say even that.

[Ken Pierce]

Jake,

I agree that The Problem of Pain is Lewis's weakest effort.

The subject's just too big for Alexandra's comment section. I was in fact able to track down that eight-year-old stuff I wrote up on theodicy, and I have posted it in a series of eight posts, with a table-of-contents post here that you can use as a handy way to go through them in the correct order. I won't be in the slightest offended if you decide it's not worth the trouble.

Mike,

[sigh] You make me tired. It's not difficult to "confront" what is, essentially, one long not terribly strategically skillful appeal to authority, it's just so tedious, and I've so been there, done that. Will get back to you later, though, if you really want.

[MikeOMatic]

Here, JakeWasHere. Ken might easily refute your latest statement, but I think he'll have a harder time confronting these.

"There are no atheists in foxholes." — Lt-Col. William J. Clear (1942)
"'There are no atheists in foxholes' isn't an argument against atheism, it's an argument against foxholes." — James Morrow
"It is not widely reported that any good decision was ever made in a foxhole." - Author Unknown

"I'm an atheist, and that's it. I believe there's nothing we can know except that we should be kind to each other and do what we can for other people." -Katharine Hepburn

"I cannot conceive of a god who rewards and punishes his creatures or has a will of the kind we experience in ourselves. Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egotism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world, together with the devoted striving to comprehend a portion, be it ever so tiny, of the Reason that manifests itself in Nature."— Albert Einstein

"I prefer rationalism to atheism. The question of God and other objects-of-faith are outside reason and play no part in rationalism, thus you don't have to waste your time in either attacking or defending." -Isaac Asimov

"Only a humorless tyrant could want a perpetual chanting of praises that, one has no choice but to assume, would be the innate virtues and splendors furnished him by his creator, infinite regression, drowned in praise!"
"Along with Islam and Christianity, [Judaism] does insist that some turgid and contradictory and sometimes evil and mad texts, obviously written by fairly unexceptional humans, are in fact the word of god. I think that the indispensible condition of any intellectual liberty is the realisation that there is no such thing."
"I am not even an atheist so much as I am an antitheist; I not only maintain that all religions are versions of the same untruth, but I hold that the influence of churches, and the effect of religious belief is positively harmful. Reviewing the false claims of religion, I do not wish, as some sentimental materialists affect to wish, that they were true. I do not envy believers their faith. I am relieved to think that the whole story is a sinister fairy tale; life would be miserable if what the faithful affirmed was actually the case."
— Christopher Hitchens, Letters to a Young Contrarian (2001)

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof."
— Christopher Hitchens, "Less than Miraculous," Free Inquiry magazine, February-March 2004, Volume 24.

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
— Albert Einstein, in Albert Einstein: The Human Side, edited by Helen Dukas and Banesh Hoffman, Princeton University Press, 1981.

"It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. ... Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death. — Albert Einstein, Religion and Science, New York Times Magazine (9 November 1930); also used in the obituary in New York Times (19 April 1955)

"One who doesn't believe in himself believes in God" — Aravind Chandrasekaran

"God was invented to explain mystery. God is always invented to explain those things that you do not understand. Now, when you finally discover how something works, you get some laws which you're taking away from God; you don't need him anymore. But you need him for the other mysteries. So therefore you leave him to create the universe because we haven't figured that out yet; you need him for understanding those things which you don't believe the laws will explain, such as consciousness, or why you only live to a certain length of time -- life and death -- stuff like that. God is always associated with those things that you do not understand. Therefore I don't think that the laws can be considered to be like God because they have been figured out." — Richard Feynman, quoted by P.C.W. Davies and J. Brown in Superstrings: A Theory of Everything, p. 208.

"The more the universe seems comprehensible, the more it also seems pointless."
"Premature as the question may be, it is hardly possible not to wonder whether we will find any answer to our deepest questions, any signs of the workings of an interested God, in a final theory. I think that we will not."
— Steven Weinberg, Dreams of a Final Theory, pp. 257-258. See also positiveatheism.org's Weinberg quotations.

"It is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it is true." — Bertrand Russell

"This is one of the great social functions of science -- to free people from superstition."
"Science should be taught not in order to support religion and not in order to destroy religion. Science should be taught simply ignoring religion."
"Religion is an insult to human dignity. With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion."
— Steven Weinberg, Freethought Today, April, 2000

"Faith is believing what you know ain't so."
"It ain't the parts of the Bible that I can't understand that bother me, it is the parts that I do understand."
"'In God We Trust.' I don't believe it would sound any better if it were true."
— Mark Twain

"The fool says in his heart: 'There is no God.' The wise man says it to the world." — Troy Witte

"Religions are all alike—founded upon fables and mythologies."
"History, I believe, furnishes no example of a priest-ridden people maintaining a free civil government."
— Thomas Jefferson
"The legitimate powers of government extend to only such acts as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say that there are twenty gods, or no God." — Thomas Jefferson, Life and Selected Writings of Thomas Jefferson, p. 254
"In no instance have ... the churches been guardians of the liberties of the people." — James Madison
"The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity." — John Adams
"Lighthouses are more helpful than churches."
"The way to see by faith is to shut the eye of reason."
— Benjamin Franklin

Robert Sherman: "Surely you recognize the equal citizenship and patriotism of Americans who are atheists?"
Bush: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."
— Then-future president George H. W. Bush, August 27 1987; see Free Inquiry magazine, Fall 1988, Volume 8, Number 4, page 16.
"I think people attack me because they are fearful that I will then say that you're not equally as patriotic if you're not a religious person. ... I've never said that. I've never acted like that. I think that's just the way it is."
— President George W. Bush, Washington Times, 12 January 2005

"I have no religion, and at times I wish all religions at the bottom of the sea. He is a weak ruler who needs religion to uphold his government; it is as if he would catch his people in a trap. My people are going to learn the principles of democracy, the dictates of truth and the teachings of science. Superstition must go. Let them worship as they will; every man can follow his own conscience, provided it does not interfere with sane reason or bid him against the liberty of his fellow-men."
— Atatürk, quoted in Andrew Mango's Biography of Atatürk

"Men will never be free until the last king is strangled with the entrails of the last priest." — Denis Diderot

"The saddest thing about religion is what is lost. Religion, or more accurately, I suppose, the appropriators and exploiters of religion, have taken our purest impulses of solidarity, compassion, celebration of the wonder and mystery of our lives, and turned them against us. This, most of all, is why I reject religion: so that I can reclaim these impulses for the causes they deserve... love and justice." - Propagandhi, Canadian Punk Band

"I am an atheist, out and out. It took me a long time to say it. I've been an atheist for years and years, but somehow I felt it was intellectually unrespectable to say one was an atheist, because it assumed knowledge that one didn't have. Somehow, it was better to say one was a humanist or an agnostic. I finally decided that I'm a creature of emotion as well as of reason. Emotionally, I am an atheist. I don't have the evidence to prove that God doesn't exist, but I so strongly suspect he doesn't that I don't want to waste my time." — Isaac Asimov
"Properly read, the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived."
"Although the time of death is approaching me, I am not afraid of dying and going to Hell or (what would be considerably worse) going to the popularized version of Heaven. I expect death to be nothingness and, for removing me from all possible fears of death, I am thankful to atheism." — Isaac Asimov

"To YOU I'm an atheist; to God, I'm the Loyal Opposition." — Woody Allen

"If I thought the Jews killed Christ, I'd worship the Jews." — Bill Hicks

Atheism, a religion dedicated to its own sense of smug superiority. — Stephen Colbert from The Daily Show

"I'm still an atheist, thank God." — Luis Buñuel

"... [I'm] pro-science, and when you're pro-science, that means you're an atheist, by definition." — Penn Jillette
"The world needs more atheists. And nothing will get you there faster than reading the Bible." — Penn Jillette

"Here's what happens when you die--you sit in a box and get eaten by worms. I guarantee you that when you die, nothing cool happens." — Howard Stern

"We make our world significant by the courage of our questions and by the depth of our answers."
— Carl Sagan in Cosmos (1980)

"An atheist is a person with no invisible means of support"
— John Buchan (1875 - 1940)

"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." — Stephen Roberts

"And God Said: Let there be Satan, so people don't blame everything on me, and let there be lawyers, so people don't blame everything on Satan" — John Wing

"The beauty of religious mania is that it has the power to explain everything. Once God (or Satan) is accepted as the first cause of everything which happens in the mortal world, nothing is left to chance...logic can be happily tossed out the window." — Stephen King

"Atheism leaves a man to sense, to philosophy, to natural piety, to laws, to reputation, all which may be guides to an outward moral virtue, though religion were not, but superstition dismounts all these, and erecteth an absolute monarchy in the minds of men." — Sir Francis Bacon

"The philosophy of Atheism represents a concept of life without any metaphysical Beyond or Divine Regulator. It is the concept of an actual, real world with its liberating, expanding and beautifying possibilities, as against an unreal world, which, with its spirits, oracles, and mean contentment has kept humanity in helpless degradation."
"Do not all theists insist that there can be no morality, no justice, honesty or fidelity without the belief in a Divine Power? Based upon fear and hope, such morality has always been a vile product, imbued partly with self-righteousness, partly with hypocrisy. As to truth, justice, and fidelity, who have been their brave exponents and daring proclaimers? Nearly always the godless ones: the Atheists; they lived, fought, and died for them. They knew that justice, truth, and fidelity are not conditioned in heaven, but that they are related to and interwoven with the tremendous changes going on in the social and material life of the human race; not fixed and eternal, but fluctuating, even as life itself."
"Atheism ... in its philosophic aspect refuses allegiance not merely to a definite concept of God, but it refuses all servitude to the God idea, and opposes the theistic principle as such. Gods in their individual function are not half as pernicious as the principle of theism which represents the belief in a supernatural, or even omnipotent, power to rule the earth and man upon it. It is the absolutism of theism, its pernicious influence upon humanity, its paralyzing effect upon thought and action, which Atheism is fighting with all its power."
"I do not believe in God, because I believe in man. Whatever his mistakes, man has for thousands of years past been working to undo the botched job your God has made." — Emma Goldman

"Atheism may be defined as the mental attitude which unreservedly accepts the supremacy of reason and aims at establishing a lifestyle and ethical outlook verifiable by experience and the scientific method, independent of all arbitrary assumptions of authority and creeds."
"An Atheist believes that a hospital should be built instead of a church. An Atheist believes that a deed must be done instead of a prayer said. An Atheist strives for involvement in life and not escape into death. He wants disease conquered, poverty vanished, war eliminated."
"But people ... don't even know what atheism is. It's not a negation of anything. You don't have to negate what no one can prove exists. No, atheism is a very positive affirmation of man's ability to think for himself, to do for himself, to find answers to his own problems. I'm thrilled to feel that I can rely on myself totally and absolutely; that my children are being brought up so that when they meet a problem they can't cop out by foisting it off on God. Madalyn Murray's going to solve her own problems, and nobody's going to intervene. It's about time the world got up off its knees and looked at itself in the mirror and said: "Well, we are men. Let's start acting like it." — Madalyn Murray O'Hair

"My atheism, like that of Spinoza, is true piety toward the universe and denies only gods fashioned by men in their own image, to be servants of their human interests." — George Santayana

"Why am I an atheist? The short answer is that I cannot accept any of the alternatives. I simply don't find them believable. As for the accusation of intellectual pride, surely the boot is on the other foot. Atheists don't claim to know anything with certainty -- it's the believers who know it all." — Barbara Smoker

"Which is more dangerous: fanaticism or atheism? Fanaticism is certainly a thousand times more deadly; for atheism inspires no bloody passion whereas fanaticism does; atheism is opposed to crime and fanaticism causes crimes to be committed." — Voltaire

"If atheism is a religion, then bald is a hair color."
— Mark Schnitzius, on Usenet (1993)

"An atheist doesn't have to be someone who thinks he has a proof that there can't be a god. He only has to be someone who believes that the evidence on the god question is at a similar level to the evidence on the werewolf question." — John McCarthy

"Atheism is justified: If God exists, everything that exists is part of God's plan. Atheists exist; therefore, atheists are part of God's plan. Therefore, God wants atheists to exist." - Anonymous

"Shake off all fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God, because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear."
— Thomas Jefferson

[Worshipping God] is like fellating someone who intermittently stubs cigarettes out on your head for no good reason. And we all know how unsatisfying that can be.
— Charlie Brooker, "Supposing... there were fun illnesses", The Guardian, December 18 2005

[Jake Was Here]

Ken:

I've read THE PROBLEM OF PAIN. It answers a lot of questions and provides a lot of justification for why we hurt each other, but I find it sadly and cripplingly deficient in the only area in which I'm interested: why random bad things happen WITHOUT human agency. Tsunamis. Hurricanes. Structures collapsing with people inside them. Cancer. Leukemia. Leprosy.

It's like winning some sort of sick lottery; there's no obvious sense or plan behind it. But very often, random mischance strikes those who do not deserve it, who were happily living their lives, trying to do the best they could, and all of a sudden ten tons of misery drop on them out of NOWHERE. What's the justification for allowing that to happen? As I said before, it's either mean or it's arbitrary, and it's guaranteed not to win God a lot of fans.

[Ken Pierce]

Jake,

1. I think a LOT of disbelief stems from bitterness at the havoc that God's gift of free will has wreaked on the world. You're correct, that's where a bunch of it comes from.

2. Most atheists seem to point, in similar fashion, to the cruelty and randomness of human suffering to refute the idea of a loving God. I forget where the quote comes from, but it sums up their views rather nicely: "If God were forced to endure, for one day, the existence he has forced upon mankind, He would kill Himself." That is indeed the most common argument I have heard over the years from atheists -- in fact it's practically the only widely-used argument that claims to prove that God definitely does not exist, as opposed to proving that the Deity Hypothesis is unnecessary or that God-talk is meaningless or whatever. Ironically, the whole point of Christianity is precisely that God did, of His own free will, endure the human existence, not for one day but for three decades. As Dorothy Sayers puts it, "God plays by His own rules." Of course this defense is available only to Trinitarians.

3. As for refuting the atheistic contention that God, if He exists, is either a wimp or else a big jerk...look, I'm no C. S. Lewis, but you can start with this short essay on the topic. A longer book that attempts to meet the atheistic arguments head-on is Lewis's The Problem of Pain. But the key to a logical refutation -- and I emphasize the point from my essay that the logical issue is not the real issue 99% of the time, and therefore the logical refutation rarely particularly important -- is simply in recognizing that the implicit premise behind all arguments of this form is, "I personally am the best possible judge of all possible realities and if God fails to live up to my standards then that is proof that either (a) He's evil, or else (b) He doesn't exist...for I myself am infallible on such matters." Which is a patently absurd premise -- and that's precisely why it is always left implicit. As G. K. Chesterton said of the skeptics who are skeptical of everything except their own theories, "They might have been living in the worst of all possible worlds, but they were the best of all possible judges of it."

So a more profound refutation -- though not in the form of logic -- is Lewis's Till We Have Faces, the only book in which I think Lewis genuinely rose to the level of literary greatness. (Expository greatness, certainly, came as easily to him as breathing; but literary greatness is a different animal.)

I once wrote fifty single-spaced pages on this very topic, back in the days when usenet was the only place you could be in on-line discussions, but I piddled around so long writing it (I originally meant it to be a quick one-page response but couldn't get myself satisfied with it until the loose ends were tied up) that the guy was gone from the conversation before I was ready to post. I'll see if I can find it and post it on my blog.

[Jake Was Here]

I think a LOT of disbelief stems from bitterness at the havoc that God's gift of free will has wreaked on the world. My fiancee L. and I watched something on TV not long ago about a nine-year-old girl dying of leukemia; L's commentary on the situation this kid found herself in ran to the effect that if God existed he certainly could have stopped this from happening. The fact that a nine-year-old kid who'd never harmed anybody was wasting away and God wasn't doing anything about it seemed to be either far too mean or far too arbitrary for a "loving" God, at least to L. And I didn't have a SINGLE DAMNED CLUE as to what I could say that would refute it.

Most atheists seem to point, in similar fashion, to the cruelty and randomness of human suffering to refute the idea of a loving God. I forget where the quote comes from, but it sums up their views rather nicely: "If God were forced to endure, for one day, the existence he has forced upon mankind, He would kill Himself."

[The Anchoress]

Hmmmm...if the atheists are right, then I've lost nothing through worship and have found much consolation, whether "deluded" or not. If the atheists are wrong...
well...

[antimedia]

Yumm...good stuff....

[dan cameron rodill]

Whenever I'm tempted to give atheists some of the special respect they feel they are entitled to, there are always antidotes at hand. Guillotines. The Mao Machine. Stalin and his "God-slayers."

at gringoman.com: BOB DYLAN, ALLAH AND SECULAR SAMMY

[Ken Pierce]

There was a time when I actually took people like Dawkins seriously. For a while I was myself an agnostic, and obviously I took them seriously then. And even after I returned to Christianity, I have always believed that people who are wrong are still useful in making you think out exactly what it is that they have wrong. (Orthodoxy is usually defined and thought out only when a heresy arises and you say to yourself, "Okay, something's wrong with that, but what exactly is it that's wrong?" And by the time you're done you understand your own beliefs much better.)

But the arguments of the Dawkinses of the world are so childishly narcissistic that they don't teach you very much (okay, if there is a God, then Dawkins doesn't like Him because He didn't get Dawkins's advice on how to design a universe...got that, and how is that useful information to me, again, exactly?). The ratio between the amount you learn, and the tedium you have to spend in order to get that almost insignificant piece of information, is just way too low; if you're going to spend time listening to somebody's arguments you're a fool if you don't first make sure there's a decent chance of getting a reasonable return on your investment, time being one of our most precious and irreplacable commodities. And I've heard them all before ad nauseam and the odds that I'll learn anything new are microscopic. So these days, when a Dawkins starts carrying on, I don't have the energy to get upset about it -- I don't even have the energy to bother with yet another tedious conversation with another sixty-year-old six-year-old. I just say, "Sure, dude, whatever," and move on in search of intelligent conversation.

And if you consider yourself to be in the Dawkins camp, and you think Dawkins is a genius, and you think I'm just avoiding debate because I know I'll lose...well, come back with an argument that doesn't reduce either to, "Christians can't prove their religion is true so we should all act as though it has been proven false," or else to, "Lots of Christians are jerks so the hell with them and their religion," or, "If there is a God, then He failed to take my advice in designing the world so the hell with Him," or, "Liberal academia says that the Christian documents are unhistorical and that only stupid people are Christians so the hell with the stupid fundamentalist rednecks." In other words, show me that you have something intelligent and original to say, and maybe then we can talk.

[Scribe]

I would agree with much of what Christian Bodart said in his critique of Dawkins' comments. Personally, I think Mr. Dawkins suffers from an acute case of “pot calling the kettle black” syndrome. It’s the height of human arrogance to claim to know that there can’t be a higher power; it’s a claim of omniscience by a very finite being.

[MarcH]

1. Dawkins and his friends don’t really argue at a level too far above a late night bull session in a college dorm. Dawkins says he can’t believe in G_d because G-d hasn’t chosen to manifest Himself in way which would be as easy for Dawkins and his colleagues to measure as, say, the freezing point of water. I can’t see Him, therefore He isn’t there. The rest is just sneering at traditional Christianity because it won’t adopt the trendy cynicism of Dawkins and his blue state friends (I’m disappointed that he didn’t also critique traditional Judaism. I feel left out).

2. It always strikes me as a cheap and unfair argument against organized religion when Dawkins-types turn up their noses at the tangible, material ways in which people worship, “... the candle light, the incense, music, ...” , as if this is somehow less pure or credible than sitting on the floor and meditating. It seems obvious to me that if you accept, even for the sake of argument, that if an infinite G_d created human souls with physical bodies in a physical world, He did this so that they would utilize the physical world in order to come closer to him. Catholics do this with incense, wine and wafers, etc.. Jews do it through kashrut, phylacteries, and prayer shawls, etc. And Alexandra did it with her beautiful Christmas tree last month.

3. Joshua Minton echoed a Jewish homily concerning atheism: A rabbi one day taught his seminary students that everything in the world was created by G_d for a purpose. One of the students asked, “Rebbe, what is G_d’s purpose for atheism?” The rabbi replied that atheism, by challenging the religious establishment, forces believers to notice the many vines and branches which have covered the central points of the faith and to (gently) brush them aside to see the truth at the core.

I was going to type out an excerpt from the epilogue of Herman Wouk’s classic apologia for traditional Judaism, “This Is My God (TIMG) ” (1959) concerning faith, doubt and why it is actually easier to believe in G_d in 1959 (and 2005 IMHO) than it was in 1859. Unfortunately, it was too long and it is too late at night . Still, I would humbly recommend TIMG as the best introduction to traditional Judaism for both Jews and non-Jews.

[weekenderman]

In a very real way it's wonderful to see the attacks against religion intensifying, because it evidences that Christianity is making headway in the world. After all, the athiests and secularists would see no need to attack God so much if they didn't fear His growing influence on the world all around them.

The first step toward getting people to have a discussion about God is getting them to curse and blaspheme Him -- now the ball's in our court to respond intelligently, with love, and with personal stories about how God has changed our lives!

[Stefan]

Dawkins is a windbag. He is always very tiresome to listen to. His atheism (as others have mentioned) is a religion. Instead of the “God of the gaps” he accuses religious people of invoking to fill in the spaces in our knowledge he employs an “Atheism of the gaps” to dismiss religious perspectives out of hand. He says: "Biology is the study of complicated things that give the appearance of having been designed for a purpose." Francis Crick (also of Dawkins’ ilk) said: "Biologists must constantly keep in mind that what they see was not designed, but rather evolved." This sort of philosophical “shoehorning” used to make sure any conclusion fits into their atheism is absurd. It is patently un-scientific to study something when your conclusions are predetermined and any information that doesn’t seem to fit must be re-interpreted until it does. This is purely ideological. Another thing that has always struck me is the atheist’s reliance on reason. If the universe was completely formed by totally random, unintelligent brute force and chance then everything in it is by definition “absurd”. The chemical reactions that produce the brain impulses that we call human reason would then be of the same order as our “fondness for cheese” (I believe it was CS Lewis who said this), or a belch then how can we rely on reason as having the capacity for finding Truth (capital intended). Dawkins presumes that his reason stands outside the system in order to critique it as opposed to just being another meaningless byproduct of chance. This is a fatal flaw in the atheist point of view. The only source of reason, we all know, is intelligence. In order for reason to be able to stand “behind” or “above” the universe and have access to “Truths” it must have an intelligent source which is also “outside” or “above” the universe. So, the irony is that in order to be a rational atheist one must unknowingly presuppose there is a Source, which we call God, of the very reason that will find God unreasonable. Silly eh?

[Joshua Minton]

I agree with you, antimedia. Evolution is a scientific theory, one open for constant scrutiny (as all scientific theories should be).

But in my mind, there is no inherent conflict between science and religion. It is the function of science to give a working understanding of how the universe both outside and inside of us physically functions while it is the function of religion and art to take this ever-changing understanding, draw a frame around it, and pierce it to reveal the inherent mystery which is the foundation of all existence.

Unfortunately, religions tend to become so sanctimonious and unyielding that they digress into mantras so far removed from their original purpose and intent that ultimately undermine the function and produce the dichotomy so many charlatans on both sides exploit for their own gain.

[John Wilkins]

Ahh yes, Richard Dawkins. He's very angry at us religious folk. What I find upsetting is that his God is really a caricature of the Christian God. Yes - perhaps when I was four I needed one sort of image of God; but faith deepens and develops. It doesn't need to disappear. And I wonder how far science would progress without the wonder, imagination and insight that is cultivated by religious awe.

And to talk about "hell" as being abusive is really quite bigoted. it's one thing to say, "you're going to hell you damnable child" which is abuse. Its another to say, that actions have consequences. That's not hell. That's responsible parenting.

Funny thing is that I do think Evolution has some consequences for some of the contours for Christianity. But it doesn't tell us much about living lives.

Evolution as an ethic is pernicious, however. And, as Eco remarked recently, the death of Christianity would probably not mean the birth of any sort of real humanism, but just the profligration of lots of smaller cults.

I just wish he'd describe the faith right.

[antimedia]

I would contend that evolution is a religion (as is a great deal of what is called "science".) There is no proof of evolution. It's a theory about the origins of life. Yet some defend it passionately and display the same bizarre behavior as some religious people do when challenged.

In fact, depending upon how you define religion there is almost nothing that isn't religious.

[Darrell]

Liquid, you're on to something. Atheist humanism, Leftism, is a religion unto itself with its own dogma. Ask the gentleman about global warming and man's part in it, or genetically-engineered foods, and see how quickly science flies out the door. That's why Leftism has no place in US schools. If we're serious about separation of church and state, let's be thorough...And I'm waiting for his formal proof--let's see him prove God doesn't exist. It should be easy for someone who throws those words around so easily. Does evolution prove God doesn't exist? No. Its the mechanism by which God does his Work..

To Alexandra and All Things Beautiful, 20+C+M+B+06! Christus Mansionem Benedictat...Christ bless this (virtual) home (and all who dwell within!).

[Liquid]

Dawkins says so many horrible things about "religion" and yet the whole time isn't he out writing and preaching and defining his own? Isn't he, through his books and now his little two part series, creating his own outreach for a flock? I mean seriously, why do athiest really bother otherwise? If God doesn't exist for them, then what on earth is all their 'effort of nothingless that they preach' suppose to save us from? And if you really believe in what they preach about after death and how it ends there into nothing, you gotta laugh when they start getting on the fence and mocking other religions because they really don't have a dog in the afterlife race according to their own ideology do they? Some athiest don't even realise it, but they have created their own religion! A religion of void and of defeat and of emptiness but definately created all by choice!

You see, most don't understand that while our maker would wish for all to repent and to choose Him, He loves us enough to give us free will. Even in the garden He gave Adam and Eve choice. I think God wants us to want Him, because when it comes to matters of love, think about it...each of us want it to be with a real desire and not by force don't we?

So when I read the works of the likes of Dawkins, it's like walking by the "athiest revival tent" I do find it sad that with all his so called "intellect" that he can't even be honest with himself and his following congregation and just come right out and take responsibility in one of his sermons and say: "I refuse God even if he is my maker and I refuse his existence because I choose to. I was given a choice and I have chosen to go to the grave alone and until then I will preach and try to prove God doesn't exist in every way I can, since there is a force inside me that can't satisfy me that I have accepted that won't rest that compells me to not only write one book but more and more because if I choose to believe that God doesn't exist then I can continue doing what I want and not believe that I will be accountable for it in the end and remember that even though I believe in nothing at the end....I don't want to be alone in it! So please read my books and please jump up here with me and lets watch the sun set on us as we turn into nothing in the end because that is all my religion of athiesm offers ...Come all ye and Come the faithful of nothing"

So I don't even bother listening to the diatribes of the athiest when they beg for attention like this... I understand that despite their claims of satisfaction, they are obviously in constant unrest in their own preaching. At the end of the day they choose to make a choice...and there must be conviction they struggle with, like we all do, because I know for myself, that I am restless until I am found convicted in my heart and then humble to my knees reaching for peace that I can only find through the grace of God. So...I hope that Dawkins sees the light but if not, it is his God given choice, even if it is IMHO a bad one that he has chosen. Can't fight choice when it's made...all one can do is hope and pray that they will change their mind and their hearts before time runs out.

[antimedia]

The truly secular society he dreams of would, of necessity, have to disallow all discussion of religion or of non-observable phenomena, such as "God". It would, therefore, be an autocratic (and thus not free) society. His problem is, that some people are born "dreamers", and those people will naturally question the order of things. In that questioning, some will find God, and his "utopia" will dissolve in its own freedom.

That he can't see that says something about his intelligence and powers of insight.

[BornHotRaisedCold]

It's a shame that Mr. Dawkins doesn't realize that when he wages his war against faith and religion that he is also waging a war against his own freedom to express his views.

I doubt whether any truly secular society, which he apparently seeks, would allow dissenting views of any kind, whether against the prevailing orthodoxy or against the ruling view of life itself. Every such society in the history of mankind has been totalitarian, with adherence to the ruling class a firm requirement.

[Nasty_ninety]

This doesn't surprize me one bit. There is a big push to criminalize Christianity by atheiests, etc... It's rather ironic that this athiest would accuse american evangelicals of being "the american taliban", especially if you look at the fact that athieistic communism commited horrific genocide in the last century that far surpassed any previous genocide on record.

[Patrick O'Hannigan]

Beautiful post, Alexandra. I've linked to and commented on it here. Dawkins is onto something, but not in the way he thinks. The religious impulse isn't viral; it's Augustinian, per the famous formulation from the good bishop of Hippo (circa 400 AD) that "you have made us for yourself, O Lord; our hearts are restless until they rest in thee."

[The Heretik]

The poet who lives by metaphor might suggest intelligence, imagination, and faith are all "viruses" we humans carry. The "virus" has no life of its own, but replicates within its host and so finds "life." And what of the life each of us has? Whether our lives are testament to a greater glory of god or accident, I will leave to minds more wise than mine to decide, and decide perhaps only for themselves. The gulf between the man of science and the man of faith is wide and often wave tossed. Still some take to boats.