Are Atheists America's Most Distrusted Minority?

Magritte said in 1943 in reference to the occupying Nazis: "I am not very inclined to show "the pipe", which might be used as a pretext for shutting me up in a lunatic asylum." The painting represents his idea that "everything tends to suggest that there is little connection between an object and what it represents". The writing translated: "This is not a pipe"
"The Treachery of Images" by René Magritte 1929, Los Angeles County Museum of Art

 

I came across this strange study, which is due to come out in the April issue of the American Sociological review. It explores Americans' increasing acceptance of religious diversity as long as it does not extend to those who don’t believe in a God, according to a national survey by researchers in the University of Minnesota’s department of sociology.

From a telephone sampling of more than 2,000 households, university researchers found that Americans rate atheists below Muslims, recent immigrants, gays and lesbians and other minority groups in “sharing their vision of American society.” Atheists are also the minority group most Americans are least willing to allow their children to marry.

Even though atheists are few in number, not formally organized and relatively hard to publicly identify, they are seen as a threat to the American way of life by a large portion of the American public. “Atheists, who account for about 3 percent of the U.S. population, offer a glaring exception to the rule of increasing social tolerance over the last 30 years,” says Penny Edgell, associate sociology professor and the study’s lead researcher.

Edgell also argues that today’s atheists play the role that Catholics, Jews and communists have played in the past—they offer a symbolic moral boundary to membership in American society. “It seems most Americans believe that diversity is fine, as long as every one shares a common ‘core’ of values that make them trustworthy—and in America, that ‘core’ has historically been religious,” says Edgell. Many of the study’s respondents associated atheism with an array of moral indiscretions ranging from criminal behavior to rampant materialism and cultural elitism.

Edgell believes a fear of moral decline and resulting social disorder is behind the findings. “Americans believe they share more than rules and procedures with their fellow citizens—they share an understanding of right and wrong,” she said. “Our findings seem to rest on a view of atheists as self-interested individuals who are not concerned with the common good.”

The researchers also found acceptance or rejection of atheists is related not only to personal religiosity, but also to one’s exposure to diversity, education and political orientation—with more educated, East and West Coast Americans more accepting of atheists than their Midwestern counterparts.

It made me think of a subject we have not discussed here often - the subject of Atheists. We have of course had various religious and spiritual discussions, and have touched on it at various times, within those realms, but rarely as a subject on it's own.

"Thomas Huxley ("Darwin's bulldog") is said to have come up with the most famous defense of the atheist belief that life was created by chance, not God. In a debate at Oxford, he is reported to have stated that if enough monkeys randomly pressed typewriter keys for a long enough time, sooner or later Psalm 23 would emerge."

I tackle a similar idiot by the name of Richard Dawkins on this subject, in my post entitled "The Virus Of Faith", well actually together with my readers who let it rip on the the world's most famous out-of-the-closet living atheist.

But I digress, "not all atheists use the abovementioned argument, but it accurately represents the atheist belief that with enough time and enough solar systems, you'll get you, me, and Bach's cello suites.

This belief has always struck me as implausible. The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.

I fully acknowledge the great challenge to theism -- the rampant and seemingly random unfairness built into human life. But no intellectually honest atheist should deny the great challenge to atheism -- the existence of design and intelligence. The belief that Bach's music randomly evolved from a paramecium should strike anyone as so fantastic as to be absurd, even more absurd than the belief that a monkey could monkey Shakespeare. The finite number of years in the universe's existence and the finite number of planets would not come close to producing a few sentences, let alone Psalm 23 or a Shakespeare play.

But a just reported English University experiment has convinced me that the number of monkeys and the amount of time are irrelevant. Psalm 23, let alone Hamlet, would never be written. Why? Because the monkeys probably wouldn't do any typing.

According to news reports, instructors at Plymouth University put six Sulawesi crested macaque monkeys in a room with a computer and keyboards for four weeks. Though one of the monkeys frequently typed the letter "s", the other monkeys ignored the keyboard, preferring to play with one another and with the ropes and toys placed there. When they did pay attention to the keyboard, one smashed it with a stone and the others repeatedly urinated and defecated on it.

The instructors hastened to note the study was not scientific, given the short duration of time and the small number of monkeys, but some of us find this "study" to be a hilarious vindication of our view of the "enough monkeys for enough time" argument for random creation.

According to the science correspondent of Britain's Guardian newspaper, "assuming each monkey typed a steady 120 characters a minute (itself a preposterous assumption), mathematicians have calculated it would take 10 to the 813th power (10 followed by 813 zeros) monkeys about five years to knock out a decent version of Shakespeare's Sonnet 3 . . . "

To put 10 to the 813th power into perspective, remember that a billion is 10 to the ninth power.

There are many intellectually honest atheists, and there are many intellectually dishonest believers in God.

Nevertheless, I believe that any objective person would have to conclude that the belief that everything came about by itself and that randomness is the creator is infinitely less intellectually sound than the belief in a Creator/Designer.

Sadly, many people come to doubt God's existence because so many intellectuals are atheists. But it was a major scientist, Professor Robert Jastrow, one of the greatest living astronomers, head of the Mount Wilson Observatory, formerly head of NASA's Goddard Space Center, and an agnostic, who best explained the atheism of many scientists.

In his book "God and the Astronomers," Jastrow tells of his surprise when so many fellow astronomers refused to accept the Big Bang hypothesis for the origins of the universe. In fact, Jastrow writes, many astronomers were actually unhappy about it. Why? Because the Big Bang implied a beginning to the universe, and a beginning implies a Creator, something many scientists passionately reject.

This led Jastrow to the sobering conclusion that many scientists have vested, non-scientific interests in some of their beliefs, especially the non-existence of God. For some psychological or emotional reasons, not intellectual ones, many scientists prefer to believe that given enough monkeys, one will type out a psalm.

But neither math nor science argues that all came about randomly, without a Creator. Only a keen desire to deny God explains such a belief, a belief that should be laid to rest beneath a large pile of monkey pooh at Plymouth University, England."

Comments

[Kolmogorov]

"The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism."

God is complex intelligence, no? Christians believe in God, right? So they believe that complex intelligence simly exists, period. No explanation needed whatsoever. That seems exactly as amazing a claim, no more or less, than the athiest claim. If you are willing to believe that God simply exists, without need of explanation, why not believe the universe simply exists, without need of explanation, or human intelligence exists without need of explanation?

The argument for the need for intelligence (God) to create intelligence seems so self-evidently vacuous to me that I continue to marvel that anyone at all mentions it, and more so that it is the single most common thing I hear theists claim.

[Patrick]

David,

Of course it is the diagonal proof; but did this not lead to Hippa being killed and the Pythagorean cult collapsing since their world view was proved false.

Irrational numbers are not part of the set of rational numbers.

[pat]

Scientists recently used a supercomputer to recreate one of the simplest known viruses as a software simulation right down to the individual atoms. Quoting from http://www.hpcwire.com/hpc/593993.html, "The simulations of the satellite tobacco mosaic virus involved as many as one million atoms and simulation times of more than 50 nanoseconds. This required massive amounts of computing time -- 35 processor years." To do what nature finds trivial required massive computing resources and the application of a huge accumulation of intellectual capital. The simulator was orders of magnitude more complex than what was being simulated.

Where am I going with this? Well, those who claim the universe has an all-powerful creator are necessarily postulating an entity infintely more complex than the universe itself. Nobody can prove such an entity exists and nobody can prove the contrary. Theists claiming the existence of such entity to explain the "intelligent design" of the universe are in a poor position to respond to the atheists who ask what created the "intelligent designer". It reminds me of Bertrand Russell's response to the "First Cause" argument: "If everything must have a cause, then God must have a cause. If there can be anything without a cause, it may just as well be the world as God, so that there cannot be any validity in that argument. It is exactly of the same nature as the Hindu's view, that the world rested upon an elephant and the elephant rested upon a tortoise; and when they said, "How about the tortoise?" the Indian said, "Suppose we change the subject." The argument is really no better than that."

What I am suggesting is that when one postulates a first cause for the universe one must also postulate that the first cause is infinitely more complex than the universe itself. That may or may not be so. But Occam's razor would suggest it is easier to believe that the universe sprang out of nothingness of its own accord rather than it came from the will of a pre-existing entity infinitely more complex than the universe itself. Of course, the mere concept of "pre-existing" is meaningless since that implies time existed before the Big Bang. We can talk about dates as being B.C. or A.D., but we can only talk about dates post Big Bang. Talking about the time before the Big Bang is as meaningful as talking about temperatures colder than absolute zero.

I see some are using the idea that complexity does not arise from random chance argument. The contra-argument is that it takes even more complexity to purposely create something complex. Beautiful as it may be, the Mona Lisa is orders of magnitude less complex than the mind of Leonardo Da Vinci. But anyone with the faintest understanding of evolution knows that it is not random. It requires a selection process and time. If we took our typing monkeys and killed off all of those who failed to type the first word of Hamlet, and we repeated that word by word and generation by generation, we would eventually end up with a generation of monkeys that could type Hamlet, or more likely, extinct monkeys.

The loathesome Richard Dawkins relates a similar story about a species of Japanese crabs with markings on its back. The fisherman who caught these crabs would throw back the ones where the markings looked like a face. Over time the number of crabs with face-like markings increased. Had the fishermen known of the Mona Lisa, perhaps the crabs would have "learned" to recreate her image.

I'm a software developer and I think of DNA as analogous to a computer program. But we now know that whoever wrote that program was the world's worst programmer. It is full of duplications, errors, retro-viruses, huge expanses of useless code, and it works through side-effects, rather than by design. In other words, if you wanted to "program" man, you would not have created the DNA that we have to do it. Our DNA has only one virtue. Most of the time it grows a human being capable of procreation. I mentioned retro-viruses. Why would our DNA contain the DNA of viruses? That's a fascinating topic and is yet another demonstration of the common ancestry of life. Check here for more:

http://loom.corante.com/archives/2006/03/13/the_sixtymillionyear_virus.php

I described Dawkins as loathsome. He is an excellent explicator of evolution. But when he strays outside of that field he is ignorant, arrogant and insulting to people of faith. Unfortunately, too many atheists seem to think that they are intellectually and morally superior to people of faith. I'd suggest that they look at the deeds of some of their "co-religionists" acting out of those impulses. Stalin, Mao and Pol Pot come to mind. The ACLU fanatics who want to expunge every trace of Christianity and Judaism from American life are of the same intolerant ilk.

For a good discussion of the intolerance of atheists, check out Steven Den Beste's take-down of a fellow atheist here:

http://denbeste.nu/cd_log_entries/2003/05/Inductivelogic.shtml

The reality is that nobody has a monopoly on the "truth". It is unknowable, and the existence or non-existence of the creator of that "truth" is unprovable. Belief in God requires an act of faith and so does disbelief.

What Atheists, Agnostics, Heathens, Jews, and Christians have in common is an enemy that believes it knows the truth and wishes to impose its 6th century vision of the universe upon us, by the sword, if necessary. It is frightening that so many on the irreligious left make common cause with that evil enemy.

[DavidByron]

If we are the set of "rational numbers", can we describe "irrational numbers" without the rumored throwing of Hippa into the sea by his fellow Pythogoreans?

I believe the standard proof is the famous "diagonal" argument.

Michael: you don't seem to be exhibiting much of either god's grace or wisdom recently.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

I received this e-mail today, Winner's minute, Mac Hammond.

Reason

Some people think that faith and reason are incompatible. They believe you must check your intellect at the church house door. They're wrong. The truth of God's Word will stand up to the most rigorous scrutiny. You don't have to lay aside your questions to begin a relationship with God.

In fact, He extends to us an open invitation to explore His truth. In Isaiah 1:18 He says, "Come now, and let us 'reason' together." The great author C.S. Lewis once wrote: "Anyone who endeavors to be a Christian will soon find his intelligence being sharpened. You are embarking on something that is going to take the whole of you, brains and all."

So true

[Michael (van der) Galien]

And it goes to show once again that Gods wisdom is not of this world and that those who concider themselves wise look, in fact, stupid.The so-called 'wisdom' of this world, is stupid compared to Gods Wisdom.

[Patrick]

David,

Can you explain something that exists outside of our frame of reference? If we are the set of "rational numbers", can we describe "irrational numbers" without the rumored throwing of Hippa into the sea by his fellow Pythogoreans?

Yes, I agree, we would be a subset of a larger set. That doesn't mean that the "mapping function" need abide by the laws of our set and the larger set to which we belong. We could more easily understand the larger set, but still not necessarily the "mapping function"=God. Would we be able to tell the difference between the larger set and the "mapping function" itself?

As to you wallet example, Your wallet is missing. Did someone steal it or did you misplace it. This takes into context the larger set. Were there other people even around? How often is your wallet missing?

[DavidByron]

As to Occam's razor it seems like a Big Bang can have two types of cause, either a god or non-god cause. Therefore the big bang by god creation is a special case of the big bang and so shouldn't be preferred.

My wallet is missing. Which is the better hypothesis: someone stole it, or someone with red hair stole it? Clearly the latter is nothing but a special case of the former and therefore shouldn't be preferred, in the absence of any evidence or reason pointing towards red hair-ness.

[DavidByron]

And what are the odds of a god just springing into being by luck? 10 ^ 800 is a tiny number compared to how unlikely a god is.

Patrick: it is perfectly sound that God exists outside of our perceived, measured, described deconstructed universe and would not be subject to the laws that we who inhabit it must abide by

Then what laws would god be subject to?

If god is in a different part of the universe that has different laws then wouldn't we just say that hopefully the laws that apply to both parts of the universe, the god part and the more familiar part, will ultimately be seen as derived from a system of laws of which both are special cases?

[Dub Dublin]

..it would take 10 to the 813th power (10 followed by 813 zeros) monkeys about five years to knock out a decent version of Shakespeare's Sonnet 3 . . . "

To put 10 to the 813th power into perspective, remember that a billion is 10 to the ninth power.

No, even this doesn't really put the number in perspective at all. Exponential notation makes really large number look artificially small - that's its purpose after all.

10 to the 813th power is insanely, unimaginably enormous - a number well beyond comprehension, and for *all* purposes, equal to infinity. Try this to really help put it in perspective: there are only around 10 to the 80th(!) subatomic particles in the *entire universe*!

Remember that 10 to the 80th number, since it will help you make sense of ridiculous evolutionary claims of chance. The vast majority of the universe is, of course, empty space, but if you packed the entire volume of the universe solid with subatomic particles, you would still have only around 10 to the 110th power.

By the way, Hoyle and Wickramasinghe, who were definitely not creationists but respected mathematicians, estimated the chance of the material for a single living cell arising by chance to be no better than 1 in 10 to the 40,000th power. That's the same as zero, folks.

[Patrick]

My two cents that I tried to convey goes something like this:

A theory needs to be self consistent. From my point of view, it is perfectly sound that God exists outside of our perceived, measured, described deconstructed universe and would not be subject to the laws that we who inhabit it must abide by.
When we look at the mathematical reasoning that is the foundation of measure theory and probability, we deal with things known as algebras and sigma algebras. These entities must be self consistent. They have elements within them that make certain groups (null set-nothing, everything, a group of elements A, and it's complement-everyting that is not A.). When we make discussions about "a big mass of energy" that came from nowhere or God being the start point of our universe, both of those possibilities exist outside of what science can currently explain (first cause and its related conundrums). My proposition, which follows the mathematical conventions does not demand that either one of them is provable, but that what is known as a function/random variable/measurable mapping led to where we are now. Since it exisits outside our measure space, we will not be able to describe it. There are all types of interesting rules such as the inverse mapping which takes you back to... anyways, the math is not truly important. I was simply trying to draw David Byron into a discussion on these principles, since he whipped out Occam's Razor. I wanted to know what truly would be the simplest answer in this framework. Of course, I am not a math-magician, I just have to flail my way through much of the same material.

[BCF]

David Byron:

I'm not sure you got what I was trying to say. God has no cause, and never needed to. Didn't just spring up out of nothing. Your line of reasoning suggests there must be a place on earth North of the North Pole.

[Patrick]

Sorry to jump back to earlier in this thread, but I do not get to visit as often as I used to, nor have I commented recently.

David,

Since you are a mathematician, would you care to expand upon this in the setting of measure theory? Please realize that I am a novice, and still struggling with some of these concepts, however I would like to consider your comments below:

-----------------
Well if you are intelelctually satisfied with having an entire deity just appearing from nowhere (in the causal sense, not the temporal sense) then why is it bad to just beleive that a mass of unformed energy and matter did? Occam's razor says go with the simplest things. Religion does not answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. If both science and religion start with the assumption there has to be somthing there, which is easier to beleive in, a big mass of energy or an entire god fully formed just appearing from nothing? Where did this God come from? Who created God? If you don't think that question needs an answer then why do you think anyone has to answer where the Big Bang came from?
--------------

Using the definitions from David Williams "Probability with Martingales" (Cambridge Mathematical Textbooks) in describing measure space, could you not look at this as the rational world we live in as (from the most basic example) the set of real numbers? If this were the case, would God not fit the role of a random variable (which is truly a function since we know that random variables are not actually random, nor are they variables). If this were the case, how would we be able to know the Omega we were created from or the Function that mapped us to our current reality. Neither would be contained within what we know. We do want to be self consistent.

I know I am taking some liberties with this, but I am sure you will be lenient since I still have a few more years before my PhD. I think it is an interesting way to approach this. (this could be off line if you prefer...)

I am sure you would be much better at framing this than I am. For those of you who have not had to sit through measure theory classes, the wiki or mathworld.wolfram.com are very good resources for this framing (algebras, sigma-algebras, mapping, inverse mapping(another discussion entirely)...) of a theological debate in the foundations of probability.

[DavidByron]

MCart:there are certainly laws, in this country and others, that I consider immoral, for instance, ... making SUICIDE illegal

Well this may be so that people have a legal right to try and prevent a suicide in progress without it being considered an assault.

[Stefan]

Rape has nothing to do with sexual relations it is about control, domination, exploitation, and violence. That it is a sin to commit acts of violence on the innocent is clearly Biblical. I am a Catholic so my understanding of the faith is not Sola Scriptura. Revelation supplemented by human reason is the foundation of Christian faith. Augustine and Aquinas, among others achieved a synthesis between classical thought and Christian teaching and that synthesis was the intellectual foundation of the Western world which we have ALL inherited.

Truth will never contradict Truth no matter where it is found. Therefore, an atheist who believes that murder and rape (as our examples) are evil (excuse me, unethical) is absolutely correct. They are expressing a Truth. An understanding of Natural Law is incredibly important to Christianity (even more so to Catholic Christians). It is understood as the Law which was “written on the hearts of men” regardless of their culture, time, or religion (as Liquid so nicely mentioned). Another word for it could be “Conscience”. It is clear that man has always had certain taboos and a certain basic moral framework no matter where in the world or at what time period you study. This framework is part of the picture. The things that we could never have discovered for ourselves were given as Revelation. Revelation is the “divine supplement”, if you will, to Natural Law, which all humans understand at some level, and it guides and informs our capacity for reason. Reason is not the antitheses of faith as many critics seem to imagine. It is absolutely central to discerning and interpreting the false from the True. The Bible is not the Koran, or a civics textbook, or a hand-holding guide for every possible situation that may arise in human interactions with each other. It is the continuing story of a nomadic tribe of people and their progressive understanding and struggle for and against God.

The understanding goes kind of like this: Man always had God’s Natural Law written on his heart and has always had an understanding of that he was, at once, a physical and spiritual creature. All pre-Biblical religions and philosophies are expressions of his search for the meaning behind this Truth. God then chose one people, the Jews, in order to progressively reveal Himself and further educate the world in its quest to understand what it is to be truly human. That is why when you read the Bible you see God transformed gradually from a tribal deity into the one true and loving God of all humanity. God’s self-revelation was then extended from Jews to all mankind at the moment when God entered history itself in the person of Jesus Christ. The Bible is the story of man’s continuing education. We start in kindergarten, so to speak, and gradually the message is deepened and clarified as our ability to comprehend it and engage it are increased. As Alexandra and others have noted, Revelation denotes a “revealing” which in turn denotes that there is some one to whom things are revealed. The writers of the Biblical texts add their cultural, political, and chronological flavors to their writings. The Bible is the story of God’s passionate love and unrelenting pursuit of a wayward human race as told through the minds of people.

I know this is long but it is vital to keep in mind that the Bible is to be taken in its totality and not to be cut and pasted without context. It is also important to study Christian tradition and teachings in order to see the Gospels as they are applied by human reason and experience to the problems of everyday life.

I should try to stop filibustering here but will quickly address your reasoning as to what is immoral, which I hope I am reading correctly. It is based on your choice. If you choose to do something and if you feel “comfortable” with it then it goes in the “Moral” column. If you do not want it done to you or you don’t feel “right” doing it to others then it should go in the “Immoral” bin. Is this correct? OK, very well. You are saying that one’s morality should be based on nothing more than one’s personal opinion? With utmost respect, that seems a bit shallow. If a person believes that slavery is OK then it is perfectly legitimate for him to declare that it is moral? All you can put against him is that you disagree. Your position is no more correct than his. You have no right, in that case, to call him wrong at any meaningful level. The Nazis thought that Jews were screwing up Germany and this was their deeply held opinion. You may have disagreed but they are entitled to hold that belief and act upon it as long as their legal system says it is good to go. This is the foundation of a corrosive moral relativism which is akin to solipsism.

In the creation story of Genesis humans eat from the tree of “the knowledge of good and evil” meaning that they have taken it upon themselves to determine on their own what is right and wrong instead of God. That was the ultimate step in self worship.

Sorry so long!!

[Liquid]

---Let me ask you another question. If a person knows just enough to choose to become a Christian, and THEN is abandoned on your hypothetical desert island, without a bible, how is that person to know right and wrong?
--------------------------

God put eternity on our hearts!
Just because we are blessed into the generations to have the written word doesn't mean the spirit wasn't there working in the hearts of people prior to moving God's words being written down. In the beginning was THE WORD and I Corinthians 3:16: "Know you not, that you are the temple of God, and that the Spirit of God dwelleth in you?"

[Michael (van der) Galien]

God is in us. His Spirit is in us. That is why our relationship with God is a personal one. He is not some God looking down at us from heaven. He is in us.

[MCart]

My apologies if you did not intend it that way, but the way you worded "It gave you a way out which you promptly took", I consider that a slight. It implies I was seeking a way out. I was not. In any case...

Legal CAN in some cases. But there are certainly laws, in this country and others, that I consider immoral, for instance, making drugs illegal. In fact, something simpler, making SUICIDE illegal. I guess it boils down to anything that I wouldn't want done to myself would be immoral to do to others. If I choose to do something to myself, why would it be immoral?

Until I can understand a broad range of issues, what society considers immoral by passing laws to punish it is a pretty good starting point.

I disagree with your blanket claim that you do not need a specific passage in the bible to tell you rape is wrong. (in fact, as David has pointed out, there appear to be some examples in the old testament to the contrary.) the bible does not apparently talk about sexual intimacy in any way OTHER than you should be married to dabble in it. Consentual sex has nothing to do with justice, (and I would HOPE not charity) so why would forcible sex between a husband and wife? None of the things that you list are in any way granted by your relationship with god, so far as I can tell. If it is in the bible, perhaps you could show me. If god TOLD you, well... I didn't get the memo. I would consider such a communique proof of gods existence. I've arrived at the conclusion that rape is immoral, married or not, using a completely different set of tools than you. What makes your toolset superior? Why do you believe mine doesn't exist, or that it unfairly borrows from yours?

Respect is a measure of how others see you. Do you think less of people who have been raped? Should you think less of yourself if you are raped? Why? What point is there in that? Of all things, I would expect religious faith to make you immune to that. Granted I have never been raped, but I have been physically wronged in other ways, and it never occurred to me to think less of myself as a result.

I agree with you that it is evil, but not WHY it is evil.

Let me ask you another question. If a person knows just enough to choose to become a Christian, and THEN is abandoned on your hypothetical desert island, without a bible, how is that person to know right and wrong?

[Lili]

This is amazing, I had no idea U.S. citizens were so prejudiced against atheists. So islamists intent upon jihad are less of a problem to the U.S. than a few atheists? I'm simply being totally honest when I say that I just don't believe in any god, and surely honesty is a pretty good value. To pretend that I believed when I don't could even be seen as breaking the 9th commandment.

As for not sharing christian values - that's utterly ridiculous!!!! Atheists generally support human rights and usually the following of the 10 commandments:

3. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them. (indeed, atheists are all for this one!)

4. Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy. (To most people having one or two days off per week - not necessarily sunday - is pretty important.)

5. Honor thy father and thy mother: that thy days may be long.

6. Thou shalt not kill.

7. Thou shalt not commit adultery.

8. Thou shalt not steal.

9. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor.

10. Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor anything that is thy neighbor's.

Most western values do stem from the best part of judaism and christianity. The best part, mind you, not silly prejudices against homosexuals and sexist historical rulings.

I bet if you got everyone who calls themselves a christian to be completely honest with themselves (and not afraid of being ostracised), many would admit to not being 100% sure about the existence of god. It's called doubt, and it has haunted all religions constantly. So technically, these people are really agnostics, giving christianity the benefit of the doubt.

I would never dream of trying to 'convert' anyone to atheism, in fact I envy those who have the rose-tinted view of being looked after by a loving god. It must be very comforting. But nobody can force themselves to believe if they simply don't. Islamists don't get that, but I'm shocked to see that christians don't, either!

[DavidByron]

But the bible does sometimes depict God telling people to commit rape and genocide and enslave people. Therefore it's just not credible for a christian to say they believe in fundamental rights. Their concept of rights is always subject to the whims of a capricious god. Only the atheist can beleive in fundamental rights because they don't swear fealty to a deity that ocassionally tells them to go and commit crimes in his name.

[Stefan]

Ok this is getting silly now. First off MCart, I never “accused” you of “weaseling” out of anything I just knew your probable answer if “resources” were involved in the question. I was right and should not have included them. Let me ask this instead: “Does legal equal moral?”

“Rape is the forcible violation of the sexual intimacy of another person. It does injury to justice and to charity. Rape deeply wounds the respect, freedom, and physical and moral integrity to which every person has a right. It causes grave damage that can mark the victim for life. It is always intrinsically evil.”

A Christian doesn’t need a specific Bible passage to figure that out folks. It is clear from the understanding of the integrity, dignity, and value of each and every human being as taught by Christianity from the beginning.

[DavidByron]

Oh the bible says that rape is perfectly moral. Towards the end of the book of Judges a similar situation arises. God command the Israelites to go and rape a village of women.

[slowtrain]

Christian existentialism (Kierkegaard)

Mcart,

Tell me you don’t really believe that, because common sense will dispose one to know that a person cannot be a follower of Jesus Christ (Christian) and be an existentialist; it is contrary to reason, in deed pointedly foolish.

Existentialists believe in “individual existence in an unfathomable universe and the plight of the individual who must assume ultimate responsibility for his acts of free will without any certain knowledge of what is right or wrong or good or bad”. In other words, they essentially believe in a purposeless existence and accountability to no one but themselves, not even God.

Christians believe the opposite. Christians have a clear knowledge of what is right and wrong and they are accountable to God, knowing that the God given capacity to choose (free will) is a responsibility and an integral part of a covenant with God and, a covenant that has intrinsically associated consequences (good and bad) depending on how free will is exercised and Christians absolutely believe there is definite purpose to life.

If you have the ‘misfortune’ of knowing people who have told you they are Christians and believe in existentialism, they are either liars or too confused, perhaps too obtuse to know what they believe. Being a Christian and existentialist is equivalent to being a Christian and a racist. Such is impossible, regardless of what one may claim. Being a Christian is not a label, it is a good relationship with God, you either have it or you don’t.

In 1 Timothy Paul wrote about the type of people you claim exist and in 2 Timothy 3: 4 – 7, he had this to say about such, “Traitors, heady, high-minded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive women laden with sins, led away with diverse lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

[MCart]

Stefan, I did not 'take an out' I answered your question precisely as you asked it. If you meant something else, by all means, rephrase your question. No need to accuse me of weasling out of it.

As you phrased your new question, of course it would be wrong, if I did not desire to die. Unfortunately for your question, you are building a false construct here. You would also need to assume that these hypothetical people were no longer a member of a society OFF the island. Otherwise, rescue for the survivor would likely carry punishment, or at least self inflicted guilt as the killer lies and covers up the murder to the rescuers. As long as they are nationals of an outside society, the 'rules' those societies still apply.

So lets take your scenario one step further. They are abandoned, on this island, and their parent nations are nuked flat, and they know it. No rescue is coming, they are no longer nationals of a greater society. Assuming that not only no mutually benefical alliance can be hammered out between these two hypothetical people, but one or both are actively aggressive toward the other, I would expect a kill or be killed state of affairs. I think both parties would be too busy trying to stay alive to worry about saying 'hey man, that's wrong, you can't do that'. Morals and the rules of society would be pretty much out the window. I can still call that kind of behavior immoral, from the warm dry room i'm sitting in talking about it, because I am a member of a society with rules against such behavior. To me, sitting here, it is wrong, therefore to ME, it is wrong THERE as well. If I were one of the two people, it really wouldn't matter at all. A desire to survive would take precedence over any question of whether it is right or wrong. Right and wrong are a social term to me. The more you do to sever this hypothetical group of people from society, the less and less 'right and wrong' applies.

So let me ask you a question. Where do you get the idea that rape is wrong? I have sitting before me, three books, all bibles. One New International Version, one Revised Standard, and one fairly beat up King James Version (got it at a garage sale). I have read through various parts of the New Testament on several occasions, and I am not aware of any part that claims specifically rape is immoral. There are some rules around sex in and out of marriage, and around adultery or virginity, so let's set all that aside. I'll give you a specific scenario as you have with the desert island murder scenario.

Man and wife are abandoned on a desert island together. No hope of rescue, no expectation of outside interference. The husband wishes to have sex, the wife refuses. The husband forces himself upon her.

Where in the new testament is this indicated as immoral or a sin? I hope it sounds as 'wrong' to you as it does to me. If it's not in the bible and god didn't tell you in person, where would you get your moral opposition to it?

If the answer to my question is in the Old Testament only, and you adhere to that, then why do you believe slavery is immoral?

[Joseph Marshall]

Insofar as this post and commentary are developed from Huxley's argument, the attempts to refute it here are beside the point and, in the case of Dawkins, are patently circular reasoning:

The argument that infinitely complex intelligence came about by itself, unguided by any intelligence, can only be deemed convincing by those who have a vested interest (intellectual, emotional, psychological) in atheism.

In fact, as far as I can see, Huxley's argument has been completely misunderstood, by Dawkins and everyone else. The monkeys have nothing to do with the argument, and explaining the existence of "infinitely complex intelligence" is not the purpose of the argument.

What Huxley is arguing is that there is no such thing as "intelligence" standing apart from the material world.

Dawkin's reasoning is circular because it presumes, without proving so, that "design" and "intelligence" are something self-evidently different from the rest of the world. This is exactly the point that Huxley is refuting.

Consider a deck of cards as a parallel to the all the things that can happen in the world. A dealt poker hand of a Royal Flush is unbelievably rare, but there is nothing different about the way the cards are dealt when dealing a Royal Flush than when dealing Two Pair.

It may be that a Bach Cello Sonata is as rare as a Royal Flush, but that does not mean that God stepped in from somewhere else to make the dealing any different. In addition, the notion that a Bach Cello Sonata is as rare as a Royal Flush is actually a mere unproven assumption. It might not be in some distant galaxy or other.

The logical principle Huxley is invoking is that of Occam's Razor. A complete, coherent, and self contained explanation of the world is possible without invoking God. So if God is not necessary to the explanation, there is no compelling reason to use His presence to explain the world.

And Huxley is also pointing out that, given Occam's Razor, the burden of proof for the existence of God lies with the people who assert it. And not the other way around.

Now it is probably the case that the stronger assertion of the non-existence of God is not supported by reason. Negatives of any kind cannot be definitively established in the absence of omnicience.

But, as a practical matter, most atheists of my acquaintence are perfectly satisfied with Huxley's much less forceful argument, which amounts to the old-fashioned Scotch Verdict of "not-proven".

[DavidByron]

Michael, the evangelical argument is weak. It's really on held because nobody its aimed at takes it seriously enough to answer it. It's not really an argument at all, just a sort of koan. Originally I think it was meant to be a tool of evengelism -- these days ironically it is just part of the perceived xenophobic arrogance of the American religious right --- talking about the survey results again.

Yes very ironic that you act as if you're defending them. Know why? Because nothing in atheism can lead you to inalienable rights. Nothing.

On what basis? I would say nothing in Christianity can you lead you to the idea of inalienable rights. afterall what's inalienable about the rights if they are based on the whim of a capricious god? One day you have rights the next you're being burned at the stake because "god says" you have to die. There are no inalienable rights in Christianity. Just God's word.

The only way to accept certain inalienable rights is by accepting that there is more to life than simply 'material things'.

Careful. Rejection of material things as "bad" is a heresy in Christian theology. God created the world and called it "good". What god calls good you will dare to call bad?

Naturally atheists understand there are non-material concepts such as speed, memory and rights. You'll have to do better than that.
------------------------------

If you will, God is, by definition, that which is eternal, has no cause yst is the cause of the Universe

Well if you are intelelctually satisfied with having an entire deity just appearing from nowhere (in the causal sense, not the temporal sense) then why is it bad to just beleive that a mass of unformed energy and matter did? Occam's razor says go with the simplest things. Religion does not answer the question of why there is something rather than nothing. If both science and religion start with the assumption there has to be somthing there, which is easier to beleive in, a big mass of energy or an entire god fully formed just appearing from nothing? Where did this God come from? Who created God? If you don't think that question needs an answer then why do you think anyone has to answer where the Big Bang came from?

[Michael (van der) Galien]

I believe it would be fair to say that is not completely accurate. The Romans made a distinction in
Ius Generalis and
Ius Naturalis.

Ius Naturalis is what comes very close to our perception of 'human rights'. Western Constitutions are, when talking about the rights for citizens, very much similar with the Ius Naturalis.
Ius Naturalis is Natural Law, or Godly Law or Moral Law. For instance slavery was perceived as being in breach with this Ius Naturalis. The Romans accepted that themselves.

One problem though; it was highly necessary for their economy / way of life and although they regarded it as being in breach of Ius Naturalis it was practiced throughout the (known) world - Ius Generalis.
So, although it was in breach with Moral Law, they accepted slavery because (among other reasons) it was not in breach of / with Ius Generalis.

[Stefan]

I believe it would be fair to say that in Rome freedom was a considered privilege and not a right.

[Stefan]

Yes,
If God was the creator of the universe then he stands “outside” of it. It would be a mistake to judge the logicalness of his existence on rules that exist “inside.” Everything that exists within the universe has a source in accord with the rules of the game in which we are playing. Science is the study of "the box". God is not bound by any physical limitations or rules because he is, in the most extreme sense, “outside the box."

[Michael (van der) Galien]

The Romans actually believed in certain 'universal' or 'godly' or 'natural' rights. They are the first ones who really came up with this idea; based of course on their religion.

Although they accepted slavery, they also accepted it was in breach with / of the Ius Naturalis.

[Stefan]

I feel the need to quote an extended passage here. I hope that that is not too annoying to people but it is deeply relevant. This is from the Christian theologian L. Caecilius Firminanus Lactantius’ writing Divine Institutes, Third Century A.D.:

“The second constituent of Justice is equality. I mean this ….in the sense of treating others as one’s equals….For God who gives being and life to men wished us all to be equal….But someone will say, “Don’t you have poor and rich, slaves and masters in your community?” “Aren’t there distinctions between one member and another?” Not at all! This is precisely the reason that we address one another as “Brother,” since we believe we are one another’s equals. Since human worth is measured in spiritual terms, we ignore our various physical situations: slaves are not slaves to us, but we treat them and address them as brothers in the spirit, fellow slaves in devotion to God. Wealth, too, is no ground for distinction, except insofar as it provides the opportunity to preeminence in good works. To be rich is not a matter of having, but of using riches for the tasks of justice….Yet although our attitude of humility makes us one another’s equals, free and slave, rich and poor, there are, in fact, distinctions which God makes, distinctions in virtue, that is: the juster the higher. For if justice means behaving as the equal of inferiors, then, although, it is equality that one excels in, yet by conducting oneself not merely as the equal of one’s inferiors, but as their subordinate, one will attain a far higher rank of dignity in God’s sight….if we are all given a life of soul and spirit by one God, what are we but brothers—closer, indeed, as soul brothers than as physical bothers.”

This is equality before God is the basis without which the concept of inalienable rights would never have made it on the world stage. It is in fact the very reason we have inalienable rights. Equality was alien to the classical world and the fact that modern secularists even think in those terms is because they borrowed their understanding from the Christian West in which they were raised and educated.

I was only teasing with the “confused” comment (although I obviously think atheists are wrong in their conclusions) and I do not know if secularists would have come up with inalienable human rights. The question is empty since they didn’t. It had been around long, long before the American Constitution or the founding fathers. We just codified as the basis for our national government.

[BCF]

Actually it is quite simple to claim both the Big Bang and the non-creation of God. It is usuay argued like this:"Whatever begins to exist has a cause". The claim that God does not begin but is eternal, and hence "above" time, is not a decidable proposition, people, it is a premise. It is neither demonstrably true nor demonstrably false, and therein, to me, lies the beauty of the Universe.

If you will, God is, by definition, that which is eternal, has no cause yst is the cause of the Universe. This is not logically inconsistent, but it may be a false premise.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Yes very ironic that you act as if you're defending them. Know why? Because nothing in atheism can lead you to inalienable rights. Nothing.

The only way to accept certain inalienable rights is by accepting that there is more to life than simply 'material things'.

Oh and uhm... Funny enough I am a fervent believer in Ius Naturalis. I will defend it at all times.

[DavidByron]

Ironic then that this atheist is the one defending the concept of inalienable rights on this board.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Atheists would never come up with inalienable rights. Completely true. If you want to disagree Ché, that's alright but you really should do some study about natural law: Ius Naturalis.
The people who came up with inalienable rights were religious (not Christian but religious nonetheless).
Do some research.

[DavidByron]

First of all, no one says that an atheist is a bad person just because they are atheist. I just think they are confused!! ;-)

Maybe he was confused because you said:

The belief that there is an authority that is above king and country is essential to the development of inalienable human rights. Secularists would never have come up with it on their own.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Stefan,

You're taking the words right out of my mouth. Exactly.

If those rules didn't exist and that person would choose to kill you, why would it still be wrong? Or would it not be wrong?

[Stefan]

Mcart,

I totally screwed up my question to you by adding the “resources” thing. It gave you a way out which you promptly took. It skewed the point of the thought experiment. It should be more like this: “If you lived on this island with no agreed upon human laws or legal codes and the “other” person CHOSE to kill you (for fun) would it be immoral?” It is not a question of survival but of the choice to kill made outside of any earthly legal framework. I understand the argument that you choose to live in a society that outlaws such things but can you condemn a society that does not? On what grounds can you condemn a country or society that chooses to keep slavery legal? They have ordered their country as they see fit. You can choose not to live there but by your standards you can not raise any objections. They have made their choice. If there is no over arching framework of morality that supercedes any human framework and by which it is judged as either just or unjust then each system is logically equivalent. This is moral relativism. No morality is superior to any other because there is no moral standard against which each system is judged.

The idea that all pre Christians peoples are doomed to hell is incorrect. I would recommend reading Alexandra’s previous post “Who is Eligible for Salvation?” (Dec. 2005) on this topic if you are interested in a very good discussion in regards to that exact question.

[Raimondo]

Kenny P.

I agree that from the Christian and Muslim view prostlatizing makes sense and is an integral part of the faith. However it does cause problems. Especially if you are on the receiving end of a faith you don't particularly care about.

I tend to veer towards a point of view shared by Jews and Hindus (with some exceptions). If someone really wants to become one of us they have to work at it. If not let them be.

However if a faith is cause for hostlity towards my lifestyle. Then it is my duty to be aware of it. For example I am aware that Islam is aggressively knocking on the Western world's door, and I'm not prepared to bow to Mecca five times a day. I also find kinship with Christianity when it comes to Islam perhaps because of a visceral attachment to it from childhood, not because I'm knowledgeable of the bible, or because I am a particularly pious person. I have had glimpses through personal experience of what the Caliphate would bode for us, and I don't like any of it. We're just plain lucky to be on the other side of that equation!

Any prosletizer who comes knocking at my door will be treated with respect and dignity, but will probably be as succesful as a Jehova's witness or a Mormon, many knock, none convert. If I want info. I'll go searching for it.

Alexandra,

Thank You...I'll take a peek at the blogs you mentioned. Although I have taken quite a liking to this eclectic mix of politics and culture.

Keep up the excellent work!!!

[Michael (van der) Galien]

MCart: Paul talks about that subject. He makes it clear that no person has an excuse. No matter where you live, people have a certain idea of what is 'right' and what is 'wrong'. Because God made us that way. They will be judged on their actions. However; how is someone able to be without sin? Nobody is able. That is why we all need to spread the Gospel. Check out the first two chapters of Paul's letter to the Romans and especially verse 2:14-17

Yet again; so many people think they have good arguments against the Christian faith, but when you read the Bible all those 'arguments' prove to be fake.

[MCart]

Actually, slowtrain, your smear of an 'unstable psyche' aside, your book fails to acknowledge that while some atheists do in fact dabble in existentialism, so do some Christians. I would guess the ratio is about the same within the respective populations. I certainly do not spend any effort on answering the question 'why am I here'. From Wikipedia:

In terms of the existence and relevance of God, there are three schools of existentialist thought: atheistic existentialism (Sartre), Christian existentialism (Kierkegaard) and a third school, agnostic existentialism, which proposes that whether God exists or not is irrelevant to the issue of human existence - God may or may not exist (Heidegger).

[MCart]

Stefan, I assure you I am not confused, and I already answered this question. I do not wish to be raped, myself. I do not want to see my wife or mother raped by some scumbag. I CHOOSE to participate in a society that condemns rape, and prosecutes it, and in order to participate in it, I am expected not to go aroudn raping people. Since I don't want it to happen to me, I don't do it to others. Why would I need a god to tell me rape is wrong? In fact, does the bible, new or old testament, even talk about rape, specifically?

For your second question, the desert island thing, either there are enough resources for both to live, or there are not. If there are not enough resources, it makes sense for one or the other to die. This is called Triage, and I find it hard to consider it immoral. I personally would offer an amicable solution such as drawing straws or somesuch. If the other person was not willing to settle it peacefully, and simply tried to eliminate me, I would fight. Self defense cannot be considered immoral. You're not going to try to tell me religious people are somehow immune to such struggles for survival are you? 'Religious' people in general have killed for a lot less than just pure survival.

I of course, do not presume to speak for other Atheists on the 'desert island' scenario you presented. I would expect a broad range of responses, as many Atheists may value their own lives differently. I personally do not value mine too much. Billions of people have come before me, and when I die, humanity is unlikely to even notice. I will remain alive as long as I can, because I enjoy it, I intend to better mankind in some small fashion, and have children, something I see as a form of immortality because it's a way for your ideas and memories to carry on past your own death, but I do not particularly fear death. I expect death is something like the last time I got knocked unconscious, only I won't wake up from it. Really no big deal. Bleeding out over a period of several days kind of worries me though. That sounds quite painful.

I really would love to believe that after we all die, at some point in the future we will have this massive cookout together with all the people who ever walked the earth, and some infinetly wise being will judge us according to our deeds. That sounds really nice. I would like that. ("SLOBODAN MILOSIVEC!! COME FORTH! 2.5-NO HIRE, GET IN THE FIERY PIT!!!") Unfortunately, and maybe this is just the pessimist in me, but I don't think any such thing exists or will happen. It sounds TOO nice, like a construct of hopeful people that fear their own mortality, and possibly, some fairly intelligent people trying to somehow instill a sense of morality in an otherwise barbaric culture, thousands of years ago. Of course, that is just my own little pet conspiracy theory, and I have no proof. Much like you have no proof. :)

Correlation is not causation. Just because billions of people believe, doesn't make it real.

Now, I have a serious question for you. In societies that have been isolated for a couple thousand years, why didn't they get the memo on the number of gods there are, or, if you are a Christian, can you explain why Aussie bushmen were doomed to live and die for about 1500 years before they could POSSIBLY have heard of this god that has forgiven their sins, if only they would accept him into their lives? Why have so many islander nations in the pacific come up with so many myriad religions, some monotheistic, some polytheistic, some natural or druidic, etc etc etc? Now, I get the 'in my fathers house are many mansions' thing, but does that mean that an isolated culture that worshipped a shiny rock, or the sun, or nothing at all, is just screwed because they didn't get the memo?

[slowtrain]

Atheists are people of unstable psyche and invariably drawn to the logic of existentialism. They are comfortable in the foundation of atheism (atheistic faith) because it allows for an unstable structure of interpretation.

In the book I Don't Have Enough Faith to Be an Atheist, Norm Geisler and Frank Turek expose the inherent tensions of incoherence in the atheistic worldview; "The very fact that Darwinists think they have reasons to be atheists presupposes that God actually exists. How so? Because reasons require that this universe be a reasonable one that presupposes there is order, logic, design, and truth. But order, logic, design, and truth can only exist and be known if there is an unchangeable objective source and standard of such things… Like all non-theistic worldviews, Darwinism borrows from the theistic worldview in order to make its own view intelligible."

An atheist would argue that sometime is crooked, yet denies the idea of a straight line or the concept of straightness.

[Stefan]

Well David,
The argument you say is an “old evangelical” one (I assume you mean the lower case “e”) is actually the basis of all Western legal systems. The belief that there is an authority that is above king and country is essential to the development of inalienable human rights. Secularists would never have come up with it on their own.

No one said Mormons are going to hell. I certainly did not. It is not up to me.

Christians were the first people to state the equality before God of both slave and master. This was the first step to condemning slavery in its totality. The movement against slavery was Christian in its origin (and very ancient) and when slavery was legal in the new world it was largely due to the fact that the church had very little real influence over the state powers and interests that settled it. It often railed against slavery to no avail.

Christians do believe in Truth and Justice. Not just because the “boss is here” but because the boss is Right.

MCart,
First of all, no one says that an atheist is a bad person just because they are atheist. I just think they are confused!! ;-) Here is the question, why is rape wrong? Why is murder wrong? The question is not why they are illegal but why are they wrong? There is a big difference. You cannot answer this in any satisfactory way without appealing to a “universal value” inherent to each human being and there is no universal value to human beings without God. There is no way around it. Let’s put it this way: If you lived with one other person on an island (with no agreed legal system or governmental structure; in the wild, so to speak) and there were limited resources for sustaining life, would it be wrong to kill that person or for them to kill you? Neither of you are bound by any law, or code, or civil agreement. The question is not “would you kill” but rather, “if you killed would it be inherently and intrinsically evil”? If you say that killing is evil even when you are under no obligation to any human made law then you will have admitted that there is a Judge who has jurisdiction outside the realm of earthly systems. There is no Justice without a Judge.

[DavidByron]

Stefan raises an old evangelical argument.

If an atheist professes belief in Justice, Truth, Good, Evil, or even Right and Wrong (capitals intended) then they have already given up the ghost. If you believe there is any Justice that stands outside of and, therefore, above the world then you cannot be a materialist.

But it's a double edged sword. I can just as well argue that if Christians don't beleive in Justice, Truth, Good, Evil and so on, on any basis other than "Look busy, Jesus is coming" then they don't really beleive in those concepts at all. The example of slavery you use is particularly damning. The christian church accepted slavery for a long time because the bible condones it and even demands it as a punishment for some crimes. Now of course christians "know" that slavery is wrong. It didn't seem that their special relationship with God was good for much as far as making that conclusion was concerned did it? They made the conclusion for the same reasons as secular society.

Today in fact in America the religious right is seen as the immoral reactionary group that is behind in terms of its moral treatment of homosexuals. Just as with slavery no doubt the church will catch up eventually.

Evangelicals, other Protestants, and Catholics have gotten past many of their old suspicions towards each other in the last 25 years and have begun to truly appreciate the genius of their respective traditions in a truly ecumenical way

The Mormons and the Jehoveh's Witensses are still going to hell though, huh?

Ugly American:
I think it is accurate to say it is a belief in something larger than yourself that explains the unexplainable and dictates a value system for your life.

Right. I agree and that's why I am saying that most people are effective atheists today --- because people these days don't bow the knee to higher powers any more. We are not subservient to our leaders. It's all about "me". The new mysticism and spirituality is not about worshipping a god so much as inventing spiritual buddies or cutesy past lives. If there is a divine it's oddly banal.

There is no logical explanation for how the Big Bang occurred or what existed and did not before that occurrence.

Religion doesn't answer this question either.

[MCart]

Ugly American:

You make a couple points I tried to address earlier. Of course scientific theories are often wrong, and subject to challenge. It is a tool, not an ideology. Even our understanding of something like the speed of light is subject to revision, should someone come through with a new proof or way of measuring it that stands up to criticism and scrutiny. Science is not an end state, and it is not a baseline, or an ideology. I cannot stress enough, it is only a tool.

The big bang theory may ultimately prove to be incorrect. (I consider the current evidence convincing, however) I do not see how your construct for explaining the unexplainable could be any more valid than a physicist that is trying to support the big bang theory. I think it's intellectually dishonest to claim that an event such as the big bang requires a 'creator' or driving intelligence, and on the other hand, claim it's possible god has always existed. If everything must have a finite, clear starting point, from where does your god hail? Who or what made him? If you can accept on faith that 'he' could be 'the alpha and the omega', why is it assumed that the existence of energy, or even matter must have a starting point?

Getting back to 'Atheism as a religion', again I would like to stress, we do not necessarily have 'scientific leaders'. For a person with no 'faith', leadership simply isn't required. I don't seek answers about my 'soul' because I don't believe I have one, or that any such thing exists. A Hindi isn't going to come to a Catholic church to catch an inspirational sermon is he? A Catholic wouldn't go seeking advice about the nature of god in a Mosque would he? Why would an Atheist go to ANYONE for advice? We don't have a church or leaders. For those Atheists that do, I think something strange is going on, possibly a substitute faith for what that person percieves as a betrayal by its previous faith. None of the 'great atheists' you have referenced speak for me.

On morality, I don't understand why the 'faithless' are assumed to be immoral. I've been married 6 years. I intend to fill out my marriage vows, to the very end. That was an oath on my honor, and I will not violate it. As a human with no god, what more do I have to present to the world than my word, my integrity as an individual? Honor is a bit like your credit rating. It's valuable, it accrues slowly over time, and you can leverage it for influence. Wasting it would be a terrible thing. But more than just simple honor, what about just plain morals? Morals are simple to define and adhere to at a social level. How would I sleep at night securely if I didn't participate in a society where rape, murder, and theft are unacceptable? How could I expect to be a part of that society if I didn't observe and adhere to it's laws, and participate in the enforcement of it's laws? None of this requires faith in a higher being from which all 'morality' flows. I do not wish to be raped, so I will not rape others, and I will intervene should I encounter someone else being raped, I encourage my legislators to toughen up penalties for rape, I will participate in any jury I am called upon to determine if someone is guilty of it, and I happily pay my taxes for a HUMAN system of crime deterrence and punishment for those who break these rules. I don't need a higher power, beyond human society to tell me that rape is wrong. It's enough for people to get together and decide they don't want it to happen to them, or the people they care about, and do something about it.

I don't buy the 'we need to do every last depraved thing we can think of, as fast as we can, because we only get one trip through' analysis of the motivations of Atheists. There may very well be such people, but if all we really have is one trip through, why oh why would I unnessisarily risk shortening that trip by dabbling in drugs that harm my body, or rampant sex with all the associated disease and potential human physical harm? Why would I eat until I cannot move, or neglect my children, home, spouse, or finances, in favor of personal pleasure? Is religion your ONLY motivation for such personal control? Are you of the opinion that without faith in god, you would immediately degenerate into some kind of cannibal/rapist/thief/murderer? Is that ALL that keeps you moral?

To your point, Michael,

The Palestinians, to me, do not have any 'right' to have their country on land that they do not own. That land must be granted to them by agreement of all parties interested in the land, or they must take it by force. Just as that land has changed hands dozens of times throughout recorded history. If Israel, Lebanon, Syria, Egypt and Jordan lack the grace to give it to them, and the Palestinians lack the force of arms to take it, perhaps they should move on to other land.

[Alexandra]

Liquid,

This guy is a great find, thank you.

[Michael (van der) Galien]

Stefan:

"More interesting to me is the number of “atheists” who don’t believe in what they profess. If an atheist professes belief in Justice, Truth, Good, Evil, or even Right and Wrong (capitals intended) then they have already given up the ghost. If you believe there is any Justice that stands outside of and, therefore, above the world then you cannot be a materialist"

Very well said. Indeed, a 'real' materialist cannot accept 'truths' as 'right' or 'wrong'. To the real materialist 'Right' and 'Wrong' are both made up by mankind.

Furthermore; 'natural rights' do not exist to the materialist. To use an example, to the 'real' materialist, the Palestinians don't have a natural 'right' to have their own country.

[The Ugly American]

To our mathematician David Byron; you seem to lack a fundamental understanding of what religion not only Christianity is.

I am not theologian but I think it is accurate to say it is a belief in something larger than yourself that explains the unexplainable and dictates a value system for your life.

It has little to do with attending church regularly. You can believe something and violate that belief which results in guilt. It does not negate the belief.

Does that make sense?

It may not be entirely accurate to describe atheism as a religion however many atheists certainly act on faith in their "scientific leaders". I think it is safe to say most atheists like most religious believers are not scientists. They take on faith the word of their scientific leaders or prophets if you will.

As you as a mathematician know many scientific theories that are widely held to be true are often proven wrong.

There is no logical explanation for how the Big Bang occurred or what existed and did not before that occurrence. It is an attempt by those who refuse to believe in a god to explain the as yet unexplainable. If that gives you comfort that’s fine with me.

What I fail to understand is why so many atheists take issue with the religions that give comfort to the faithful.

I am not accusing you of belonging to this group. You seem to be trying quite hard to be diplomatic in your criticism.

[Stefan]

David,
Most Christians do believe in the Virgin birth, and most do go to church. The fact that church attendance has dropped in many places has more to do with the corrosive self-infatuation and the spiritual world-weariness that is the by-product of the ideology relentless secular relativism and worship of the secular icon: “ME”. If one believes that there is no God then the most human instinct is to avoid any sacrifice what-so-ever (as sacrifice involves self-denial and pain) and indulge in one’s own pleasure. There is no point in denying yourself anything because it is only “once-around-the ride”. Why wait?

More interesting to me is the number of “atheists” who don’t believe in what they profess. If an atheist professes belief in Justice, Truth, Good, Evil, or even Right and Wrong (capitals intended) then they have already given up the ghost. If you believe there is any Justice that stands outside of and, therefore, above the world then you cannot be a materialist. To be a consistent and honest materialist you are obligated to believe that there is nothing outside of nature. For example, slavery was legal in the USA, but I would venture to guess that you would say that it was a terrible injustice and should not have been. I believe you have used this example when taking a shot at the US. If it was legal and there is no moral authority outside of man himself then to what sense of Justice would one appeal to in order to say slavery in an “evil”. It would be no more that one man’s opinion. If we agree (as a nation) on a civil and legal framework and that is the highest authority then “legal” would roughly equal “just”. Why is it wrong to murder? Because it is not nice? Who cares? To whom are we responsible? If we are only responsible to ourselves then if say it goes then it goes. Logical? Of course it is.

Atheists have the same problem with appealing to “reason”. How can reason stand outside of the world and judge its “reasonableness” and comprehend it if it is merely an accidental by-product of the system it attempts to understand. How does a fish know it is wet? Christians have a deep love and respect for reason because they know and accept that it is of divine origin. We are created in God’s image and we are rational creatures. Scientific inquiry is not a child of the skeptic’s mind but a direct and logical step in the Christian desire to know and learn the ways of the Supremely Rational Creator. The human desire to understand, and build, and bring order to chaos is a reflection or our Creator.

I think that instead of bothering yourself with attempting to portray the divisions within Christianity (and on that, Evangelicals, other Protestants, and Catholics have gotten past many of their old suspicions towards each other in the last 25 years and have begun to truly appreciate the genius of their respective traditions in a truly ecumenical way) you should be taking to task all the atheists who naively continue to speak and live as if there were a God. “What conclusions can we draw about the strength of their so-called faith” (or so-called lack of it)?

Since I am having fun quoting Mr. Chesterton today I will indulge once more: "If there were no God, there would be no atheists."