Zanti

There Are No Atheists in the White House
The myth that our nation is under the control of Christian fundies is a myth that will persist so long as people need it. I ask people to name our state church. I ask people to explain how come we're not all forced to pray once in the morning and twice and night. I ask for proof that we are under religious rule, and they provide sound bytes and cite religion-friendly laws. Yet they can't show me this fabled state church. It's there, but we just can't see it, apparently.Sort of like God. posted 01/09/2008 at 15:40:57
"Nice to see someone out there with the balls to speak the truth that religion is a mere fairy tale."Right. That's such an uncommon point of view nowadays. And so rarely expressed. posted 01/08/2008 at 16:42:38
No atheists in the White House? Didn't Karl Rove hang around there a lot?posted 01/08/2008 at 16:35:35
Atheism as a Stealth Religion II: Let's Get Real
Dap,I called myself a skeptic. Look up the word. posted 01/11/2008 at 17:10:04
HeevenSteven,You misrepresented my position. I don't claim that no God entity exists. Rather, I feel it's improbable yet possible.I am a standard-issue skeptic, in other words.By Dr. Wilson's definition of atheism, yes, I'm an atheist. He writes, "If theism refers to a belief in supernatural agents capable of intervening in natural processes, then I am 100% an atheist and proud of it."Same here. I don't believe in magical beings, either. But I feel that definition is far too narrow. It's out of date, to say the least. It presumes that being a person of faith automatically equals believing in supernatural agents. Like it or not, this isn't the case. And hasn't been for quite a while.I'm always inviting atheists to check out that last claim--specifically, to acquaint themselves with the mainline Protestant position instead of offering up a dumbed-down version designed to make believers into square, behind-the-curve stooges. For instance, try reading the Christian Century. Don't feign acquaintance with a point of view you haven't investigated. posted 01/11/2008 at 03:07:19
Which you interpret as an excuse to play the smart guy with people having no choice but to endure you? That's an odd reading.I don't care for your smarter-than-thou act, and one form of turning the other cheek is to walk away. Which I did, thus acting in accordance with the instruction in question. You're the one missing its spirit. Zero points for irony. posted 01/11/2008 at 02:47:06
As I was saying,You're very good about not suggesting that anyone has to agree with you. I'd said that in the last small post, but everything got cut off after my smiley-face symbol. I've had that happen at Google, too.The smiley-face symbol combination must act as HTML for "The end." posted 01/11/2008 at 02:29:54
Oh, and..."I worry about people who suggest that I have to think as they do." This wasn't in reference to you, btw. ( posted 01/11/2008 at 02:25:26
Ouch. I meant to type, "Astonishingly, my eye doctor had never bothered to explain that I'VE HAVE depth-perception issues when I returned to two-eye vision."Of course I meant, "I'd have...."posted 01/11/2008 at 02:21:37
Dap,Sorry--I didn't know you were dyslexic. There was no intention to make fun of anything but your boastful attitude. And to answer your unkind comments about believers. You did, after all, sign in by announcing that "religionists" have no use for the logical method because we live in a fantasy world. You didn't expect any response? And in a discussion forum, no less?For what it's worth, I myself have vision problems that impair my reading and typing skills. The official name for my condition is a mouthful--something to do with dystropia. As a kid, I was an A student and a bookworm. I was a hard-working learner with a lazy eye. When the clip-on patch was taken off the left lens of my glasses, I started walking into things. And my reading slowed down to a trickle. My grades dropped. Astonishingly, my eye doctor had never bothered to explain that I've have depth-perception issues when I returned to two-eye vision. That my brain had never learned to process 3-D. And never would, it turns out.The for-example statement you quote strikes me as perfectly reasonable. I feel you're using irrelevant data to try to prove something. We're talking about the objective, factual reality of God--as in, is there one. No amount of brain theory will answer the ultimate question UNLESS we've first established that God is a thing of the mind and nothing more. We know he's a thing of the mind, but the question is whether or not a factual God exists in league with the various gods constructed in man's image. Who knows? I sure don't. posted 01/11/2008 at 01:58:38
"Looks like we did pretty good by our metaphysics."But weren't we supposed to do pretty good by answering Dr. Wilson's points? I wonder how he feels about the general failure of this thread to do so.I thought he wrote one hell of a good piece, and I was hoping people would take up some of its points.posted 01/11/2008 at 01:38:36
Muse,And put me down as believing in God the Unproven. There's no proof that God isn't solely an extension of man, to quote my Marshall McLuhan phrase. Dr. Wilson's piece deals with practical vs. factual reality--my term for the latter being objective reality or "real reality." So I've tried to keep my comments within the scope of his piece, which is only courteous.This is not to suggest we have to toss out our own definitions or to agree with the blogger, but we do need to frame our responses in terms of what he's offered. Otherwise, we are off topic.You have faith that there is an actual God, but on what are you basing that assurance? I believe we're living in harmony with "real reality" when we admit when we're not sure.Yes, others here say God is absent. But trained skeptics say, instead, that God is unproven. Even richard dawkins--as much as he plays to the No-God crowd--admits this. It's a matter of probability. Odds.Anyway, where else will I ever have the chance to play believer AND skeptic at the same time? To defend religion against neo-atheist attack while praising skeptics and skeptical thinking? Faith and reason may be opposites, but "opposite" doesn't have to mean opposed. Only to absolutists, who live in a this-or-that world, do contrary states represent a threat. I worry about people who suggest that I have to think as they do. Diversity of opinion and belief is a gift from God. It's very important to be aware of the difference between fantasy-based thinking and thinking informed by "real reality." But people are using this distinction as an excuse to make all kinds of absolute assertions, all toward the end of proving (without proof) that they, and only they, have the answers.The distinction is valid. Their broad, subjective use of it is not.It's not about us. It's about the greater reality, whatever that is. That greater reality is the host, and we are its guests. posted 01/11/2008 at 01:34:12
Is "your brilliance is evades me" your usual take on grammar, or is it something my untrained mind just isn't understanding? Probably the latter.Sorry, it's just that your arrogance was such an irresistible target. If you're so much smarter than the average poster, why the short fuse? Did Einstein blow up every time someone said, "Huh?" Walk the walk of your fellow geniuses, most of whom take insects like me in graceful stride. Have pity on us slower folks.posted 01/10/2008 at 04:57:06
Dap,I posted this simultaneously, as I anticipated you wouldn't answer my question below. As you didn't. And you nevertheless continue to make the same unproven claim.The "man made" qualifier is nonsensical, since it's a presumption. It's as if you were to write, "God is b.s., therefore he is b.s." and then point to the circular truth of the statement. You can't PRESUME God's nonexistence, no matter how remote the possibility.And, as Moderationsmuse points out below, you're conflating "God" and "religion." Much as dawkins behaves like religion itself is nothing more than a scientific hypothesis for God's existence. Therefore, prove God ain't real, and you've done away with religion. It's that simple. Wow.But, as Muse notes, not only does religion survive the absence of God (or a God), any reasonable person has to concede that there's a devil of a lot more to faith than a mere claim (or series of claims) for God's existence. The Christian Bible, for instance, is not 500 zillion variations on "God is real." It's a little more nuanced as a text.The point is, we can effortlessly erase anything we reduce to a mere speck. But nothing gives us any logical justification for doing so.The way you cling to No God, we can only conclude that No God is your God. Like many neo-atheists, you can't get by without something to disbelieve in.posted 01/09/2008 at 19:59:53
I didn't ask for a testimonial. I asked that you prove your statement. Either you can or you can't."As it is with beauty, proof is in the eye of the beholder."Nonsense. Haven't you heard of the scientific method? An atheist is a skeptic. Like any job, there are rules of conduct that go with the job of being a skeptic. The primary requirement being that you both ask for proof AND present it.Like so many others in this thread, the moment you're asked to substantiate an assertion, you offer some analogy re the difference between believers and skeptics. We know what that difference is--we hear about it all of the time. You have to exemplify that difference OR stop pretending to be a skeptic. Walk the walk, as Dr. Wilson challenges you to do.And please explain how your profound understanding of the human mind proves or disproves God. Assuming you can prove that the God we construct is just that--a construct--then what have you proven? You haven't disproved the factual reality of God, assuming there is such a reality. You've helped established the overwhelming IMPROBABILITY thereof, but you haven't disproven it.Remember, we're not talking about a religious claim FOR God. We're talking about your claim for NO God. Claims require proof.I didn't make the rules, so please don't shoot the poor messenger. posted 01/09/2008 at 17:14:58
"I'm startin' to like you."Wish it were mutual. I've had as much of you as I can stand. Nothing personal. posted 01/09/2008 at 16:53:54
Ladies and gentlemen, courtesy of Dap:"Each and every man made God can, and without any doubt be disproved. Fact!"I don't know about you, but I can't wait to read his follow-up post, in which he backs this up.Someone get some media coverage lined up--this is front-page stuff. Back to you, Dap. posted 01/09/2008 at 15:13:17
"Atheists and environmentalists can be expected to pride themselves on their rationality."--Markus7."Everyone who claims to be guided primarily by science and reason has an obligation to walk the walk in addition to talking the talk."--Dr. Wilson.posted 01/09/2008 at 14:33:50
"Yet, each and every man made God can, and without any doubt be disproved. Fact!"Then do it. We're waiting.posted 01/09/2008 at 13:35:23
"Eureka! Stealth Atheist!" I know, I know. I saw that coming. It was just a matter of when.Labeling things is the only way we have of understanding the world, and so I've never come out against labels or the practice of labeling. The problem is never in the fact that we label things, but rather in the fact of HOW we label them. As in, effectively vs. ineffectively.A theist? Someone who believes in God. Next question. An atheist? Why, someone who doesn't. Woo hoo. Doesn't THAT give us tons of data to argue with? Jeez Louise. Boy, have we traveled to the outer limits of the issue and beyond. Whew! What an exhausting journey.Me believer, you unbeliever. It takes less time to come up with something that uninstructive than it does to TYPE it.Yes, sir--one piece of data vs. another, along with any and all broad generalizations we care to make. Since we're starting from such a dumbed-down base, there's no potential for the argument to get anywhere. "Me believer/you disbeliever" forms WHAT basis for critical discourse? None.We can pile up as many labels as we want--a thousand, two thousand. But if they're all of a "me this, you that" nature, any argument we construct has no chance of standing. The good news, of course, is that it has no chance of falling, either....posted 01/09/2008 at 01:31:50
"Are you a lawyer per chance?"No, I have too much respect for English--I could never mangle it like they do, even if they paid me.Well, maybe if they paid me.My advice was not to make up your mind before seeking a conclusion--that's all. And if your mind isn't closed to the possibility of a thinking Christian, then that's good. Problem is, you obviously view it as highly unlikely and highly novel. That makes for a bias that might be difficult to maneuver past. That, plus you seem to have reached that conclusion through your own personal experience. Generalizing from personal experience is the first thing we have to forgo when looking for answers. Nothing is more subjective than personal experience. I mean, I'm sure you know that, but it's the easiest temptation to give into.As for my know-it-all nature, I don't know where that comes from. Genetic, most likely. It's no way to win friends and influence people, but it's just me.I can't allow for an afterlife, because it's not up to me. If life continues, it does so with or without my permission. Ineffable superior intelligences, ditto. What I don't like about the concept of a higher intelligence is that it seems to be an unnecessary explanation. We seem to be wired to think in terms of a creator, but isn't that simply a symptom of wanting to anthropomorphize everything?I have a theory that every living organism needs to reinvent reality in its own image before it can interact with reality. We make Nature into something human; cats make it into something feline. Our nature is the hub around which our actions revolve.God is reality in our own image. If we can somehow transcend that image (or the need for same), we've taken the next step. Atheists, correctly, see the need to go beyond the construct called God. But we can't do that merely by rejecting it. We can't circumvent our needs or our nature by denying them. We can't wave a skeptical wand and banish illusions. posted 01/08/2008 at 10:49:15
"The problem of subjectivity vis a vis scientific claims."Exactly. It's a brand of is-or-ain't, black-vs.-white, true-or-tripe thinking. The kind Dr. Wilson tells us to be careful to avoid.He's specifically warning atheists against adopting an "Atheism rational, religion irrational" certainty. ("Me atheist, you Jane.") They listen, but do they hear?I think you and I have taken on the possibly impossible task of trying to explain to black-and-white thinkers the concept of black and white thinking. posted 01/08/2008 at 08:49:05
"I posted the following under Wondering's recent remark. I see that part of it originates with you, so I copy it here as well, Zanti."Thanks. And I initially misread the original remark, thinking that the last part of the Wondering quote was YOU. And I mis-responded accordingly. I have no excuse, really, having gotten a decent night's sleep. Let me re-apologize for sloppy reading.Great points, though I'm really referring to Christianity itself as myth, i.e. a body of mythology. With the understanding that myth doesn't denote true or false, or magical versus realistic, but simply refers to a shared body of belief. Cultural myths being things whose truth or lack thereof aren't dependent on their being factual.Which is why I'm not in love with the "stealth religion" term. The concept is terrific, but I wish it were more something like "stealth mythology." That would be more inclusive.However, I've fallen in love with "factual reality." It's the term I've always been looking for.Anyway, you couldn't be more correct that we have to have a metaphor for the unseeable, the unperceivable, etc. And we have to stay in touch with it if we harbor any hope of interfacing properly with What Is. Some, but hopefully not most, scientists get to thinking there ain't anything that can't be borne out in a lab, without realizing that "lab" is a very specific reality WITHIN a reality. Labs are subjective. But interesting, isn't it, the way labs can serve as the Church of Science?The mistake so many make is to carelessly construct a series of associations without making any adjustments--logic becomes the ACT OF TESTING FOR logic, which, in turn, comes to be symbolized by a series of tests, which, in turn becomes a specific experiment in a lab, which, in turn, becomes the lab itself. Suddenly, the LAB is the symbol for logic, which in turn is a symbol for reality. People who don't recognize symbols as such don't realize that erosion of meaning occurs when symbols are placed in series.posted 01/08/2008 at 08:34:15
Oops. Rather, a rationalist is someONE who thinks rationally. Not something. posted 01/08/2008 at 07:54:01
Well, Atheism should be capitalized if we're talking about it as a belief system--but while religions are belief systems, the reverse is not necessarily true. If I'm getting Dr. Wilson's points right, a form of atheism isn't a religion unless it distorts factual reality.And distorting factual reality is something we're bound to do unless we take precautions against it. We have to work to find reality. And work to shape our ideas and theories to same. That's why I submit that skeptics, like anyone else, can't CLAIM the authority of logic and reason unless they've made sure each and every claim from their person has been tested. Unfortunately, it's easy to fall under the spell of a label such as Bright (in its noun form), rationalist, seeker of truth, etc. Labels do not bestow qualities upon the holder. A rationalist is something who thinks rationally--otherwise, the label means nothing.Too much of this thread has been an instance of "religious" meaning irrational, unquestioning, stupid, etc., with "atheist" meaning the reverse. We're placing such stock in labels and not the people and actions behind them.As for your journey toward understanding C.'s like me (and there are a lot of us), my best advice is to start by admitting that you consider "thinking Christian" an impossibility. And to challenge that idea. Otherwise, you"re doomed to keep arriving, for eternity, to that original premise.Let me also point out that you're generalizing from personal experience, which happens to be THE logical-thinking no-no.posted 01/08/2008 at 07:52:24
Moderationsmuse,Thanks! Beautifully put. Wish I had your familiarity with scripture, but I'm playing catch-up, not having been raised with or by the Bible.And another apology for not reading your reply carefully enough (the one to Wondering).Though I could point out that (ahem) you didn't highlight it properly. I saw the closing quote and thought it ended there.Proper punctuation must be observed. At all times. Or else (we don't). I, myself, never make mistakes. I am: perfect. in my punctuation/? posted 01/08/2008 at 07:32:30
Moderationsmuse,My apologies. Your entire first paragraph was a quotation. Oops!!I didn't realize that.I'm always asking people to read carefully, but I need to lead by example. Sorry!And good post. posted 01/08/2008 at 07:26:32
"Zanti often uses the terms 'your side' and 'my side'."Yup. Have you ever heard of debating? Do you ever take part in it?I wonder about you sometimes. posted 01/08/2008 at 07:16:48
"How can god be either end of a metaphor if god doesn't exist?"(Long sigh)Are not metaphors things that exist? Can't you even entertain that possibility?"Coming back here to debate with people who willing adopt a fiction as their world-view makes me queasy."Human nature is no fiction, unless humans are fiction. Human mythology is no fiction, unless human nature is fiction."Why have you chosen to believe in a myth you know to be a fantasy? Convenience? Peer pressure? To get a job promotion?"Please. My sister has done infinitely better in the corporate world as an avowed atheist than I have as a former church organist.Peer pressure? Hardly. I come from an agnostic family and I spend lots of time on the Internet, where any mention of being religious is tantamount to saying "Oh, by the way, I'm a moron."Re your questions, you're asking that I pass Wondering's test. And Wondering's test consists of clichés about religion (do I pray, where do I go when I die). Luckily, Christianity has evolved way beyond the dumbed-down version that atheists, as a group, seem to be saddled with.Of course, according to you, you're not reading this.posted 01/08/2008 at 07:12:23
Yes, but no one's suggesting atheists aren"t allowed to speculate on anything they want to! I think that's a misinterpretation of anything Dr. Wilson said, and certainly anything I've babbled. I think Dr. Wilson and I are saying the same thing, overall--that we can't claim to be making logical, rational claims until those claims have been tested and refined until they fit factual reality. In other words, an idea may be correct and fair and eternal on paper, but there's the next step of applying it. Ideas by themselves are... ideas.I think a lot of people are missing the reality that assertions, principles, beliefs, et al. have to be tested constantly against any given situation. It's as basic as asking "How does this apply to the situation or problem at hand?"For instance, many secularists invoke the Establishment Clause as if it forbade any mention of religion in public. Never mind that the E.C. is primarily concerned with not establishing a state church. This is not to say it has no applications or implications past that point, but it DOES mean we can't simply make of it anything we choose to, all the while citing the original clause as our holy, unimpeachable authority. The E.C., like the right to bear arms, is something that has changed drastically in context over time, because society has changed so drastically. Yet there's violent opposition to changing our reading of these principles, even though they sorely need to be refined in such a way that they mean something in the here and now. The Founding Fathers WANTED us to fine-tune the founding principles with time. They'd be furious that we've done such a shitty job of it.Principles, ideas, and theories become dangerous things when they aren't tested and retested. When they aren't refined across time and across situations.In suggesting that atheists (or any group of skeptics) have the responsibility to fine-tune and test their claims, we're simply asking them to assume the same burden as everyone else.posted 01/08/2008 at 06:56:58
Thanks! That's a very kind thing to say. posted 01/08/2008 at 06:33:08
Oh, but not before answering a few of your questions."Did Jesus actually live - and if so, was he divine?"I have no idea whether or not Jesus actually lived. Religious scholars think it's very likely, but I'm not a religious scholar, so I dunno. Was he divine? No. If he existed, he was mortal and human and like you and I.It's highly possible he existed, in which case the basic account of his life may be correct, albeit embellished with magical details and made to conform to certain conventions. For instance, the harvest-god business of Christ being planted like a seed and popping out of the ground. Creepy, if you ask me. And we won't go into the part about consuming the Christ-plant."If god is just a culture-wide myth, then what do you REALLY think will happen to you when you die?"I plan to be cremated."What is the ultimate source of your morality?"Well, it ain't anything by Ayn Rand or M. Scott Dreck. Or Pat Robertson, for that matter.posted 01/07/2008 at 15:38:15
"So apparently, Zanti's religious belief is based on numbers."To you, perhaps. I don't have time to explain to you what "popular" means. But I assure you I'm not talking about numbers. Taking part in a shared belief system is not synonymous with going with the herd. Nor is going along with common conventions (such as wearing clothes, closing the door when we pee, saying "Thank you," not eating with our feet, refraining from crime, etc.). We don't give up our identity by taking part in our own damn society; to a great extent, we find it. If you want to argue that, go ahead. I truly do not care.Frankly, you're thinking in absolute terms that are more absolute than I guess I realized terms could possibly be. Yes, you can quote me.And when I talked about the culture-wide mythology of Christianity, do you think it's possible I might have been talking about Western culture? (Hint: Yes.)"Zanti's thinking seems dangerous to me. Such people are easily swayed by ANY culture-wide myth, like fascism. Am I being too harsh?"More like ridiculous. I don't think you can help insulting people--you live in an all-or-nothing realm. Your conclusions are broad and record-settingly subjective. To put it as nicely as possible, you are not in an ideal position to be questioning my critical judgement. I'm not, in fact, sure that you even know what critical judgement is.posted 01/07/2008 at 14:45:07
"Like our friend, Zanti, he wants atheism to be a simple skeptical response to theism - the only thing atheists are allowed to say is, 'Prove it.' Then they are never allowed to say anything more on the subject."Please don't blame Dr. Wilson for my idea. That was me, not him (he?). I'd like to think it fits in with his ideas, but I have no way of knowing for sure. He may not even agree with me.And I'm not suggesting atheists have no right to go beyond "Prove it." I'm suggesting that, so long as skeptics properly invoke the scientific method, they are immune from counterchallenges. But ONLY so long as they do so. Otherwise, they are subject to the same rules of engagement as anyone else. Do you have a problem with that? Is it unfair to hold the claims of skeptics to the same standards we would hold anyone else"s?Too many neo-atheists, in my experience, are in the habit of pointing to their atheist label as proof that everything that issues forth from their person enjoys the pre-approval of the Logic God or something. But logic is not a label one wears--rationality is not a club we join. No one has the right to suggest that their claims are logical by default. No one has the right to opt out of the burden of proof.Of course atheists have a right to move outside of challenge mode"however, immunity from counterchallenge only extends so far as that mode. When you leave its umbrella of protection, you're in the same boat as the claimant. I'm not questioning your right to make claims! Nor damning you for doing so. I really can"t see why you think so.Logic and reason are invaluable tools. They can also serve as dangerous smokescreens when we cite them without actually applying them. I can label any claim as rational or logical, but simply labeling it as such don't make it so.posted 01/07/2008 at 13:26:29
I find Dr. Wilson's original essay more helpful in regard to what he means by "stealth religion." He talks about beliefs and belief systems that, while they don't invoke supernatural agents (his phrase), "are just like religions when they sacrifice factual realism on the altar of practical realism."He includes scientific theories in the raw--i.e., unrefined by repeated testing--as one set of examples. I love this example. It emphasizes that something can contain a general truth yet lead to disaster if insufficiently focused and corrected. A big, fat, general truth isn't something you can light the house with. General principles, if they fail to evolve beyond a blob of good intentions, won't start your car or run your PC.The "stealth" part refers to a surface soundness that hides a distortion (or distortions) of factual reality. What I wish he hadn't included was the "for the purpose of motivating a given suite of behaviors" part, because distortions of reality don't have to be willful or enacted for a purpose. Which he himself acknowledges. Maybe he"s going too far in his definition. If so, that"s far better than the reverse sin of under-defining.posted 01/07/2008 at 10:05:54
Hold on--an atheist is, what? Someone who recognizes myth as myth? If that's your take, then you're labeling an awful lot of believers as atheists, including the great German theologians of the 19th century (and beyond). Or simply liberal believers in general.My foster parents' minister said, in his farewell sermon, that we mustn"t limit our search for truth to the "mere Christian God." His church got in the national news for being "gay-affirming." So, I take it he's an atheist, too?It seems to me YOU have a choice. Namely, to either cling to your narrow definition of what a Christian is, or to open your mind to other possibilities. You've claimed the ability to think rationally as unique to your group (or your kind of group), and maybe you've been given the chance to learn the folly of that presumption.Your definition doesn't allow for thinking Christians. Well, we exist, anyway. How you deal with that truth is your choice. If stepping out of the stereotype equals rocking the boat, then there"s something wrong with the boat.And please stop glorifying your opinions as mere observations and the like. You're just an ordinary mortal thinker, like the rest of us.posted 01/07/2008 at 09:39:26
"I must say that I am done with this 'debate'. I've got more important things to do."Sorry you think I've been jerking your chain. In fact, I've been trying to follow the point/counterpoint form of debating.Very often, I don't know when to pack up and leave, but I sense this is one of those times.posted 01/07/2008 at 09:24:23
"Atheism, bluntly spoken, means you don't believe in the Invisible Man(Carlin). You likely don't believe in the Hereafter, either, but rather more along the lines of Burt Monroe, that when you're dead, you're dead."Atheism is nothing less than a branch of skepticism. It's more involved (and proactive) than casually deciding there's no Big Guy in the Sky.I'm not comfortable when any kind of skepticism--atheistic or otherwise--is described in terms of a conversion experience. When it's related in the manner of a testimonial. As you've done here.You claim to be walking the skeptical walk, but all I hear you doing is decrying religion as b.s. in so many variations. Anyone can do that, especially at the moment, when it's so fashionable. Frankly, your essay sounds like an introductory statement at a meeting of Atheists Anonymous....posted 01/07/2008 at 08:29:14
Oops. Actually, it drove right past me! My bad.Exactly. Can we really be sure that we aren't really sure? Got it.Maybe that's a uniquely human abliity--i.e., the ability to sense that there's more than we can sense at any given moment. To sense beyond our senses. Plenty of species can reason via the information they gather from their senses, but we seem to be able to interact with our own mental constructs. I doubt that animals can do that. Animals think, but they don't know that they think. Or think they think. They're focused on marking territory and finding food and sex. We humans are way more advanced than... um....Er....Yeah. Let me think about that.posted 01/07/2008 at 07:46:16
And you lost me. You're painting everyone with the same, very broad brush. You're arguing in such absolute terms that it's impossible to know how to respond. I don't mean that in an unkind way--I'm just saying.I believe you are sincere in every way, and I hope you perceive the same about me. But we're hitting a wall here. The simple fact is that many, if not most, believers do not practice a text-literal, supernaturally-based faith. Nor are they required to do so. Even if they WERE required to do so, people are notorious for bending the rules. How many Catholics, for instance, who SAY they obey the Pope actually do? In my own (subjective) experience, very few!You may feel that believers ARE required to believe everything and to follow this or that, and you may fault us for not being obedient, but the fact remains that religion on paper and religion in real life can be vastly different things. Thank God.In challenging the "absence of belief" cliche, I'm suggesting that what works out on paper (A does not equal -A) may not work out at all in real life. Theory and reality have a way of not always occupying the same page. And, to be sure, a skeptical point of view, by definition, is a critical one. Critical points of view HAVE to be based on beliefs and perceptions. They cannot otherwise exist.Therefore, it's irrational to assert that any skeptical stance, including atheism, can consist of (or function by virtue of) non-beliefs. A skeptical stance is NOT a neutral stance, not even in the context of invoking the logical method. Why? Because no one invokes the logical method unless he or she perceives a reason to do so. Such an assessment doesn't come from nowhere. It doesn't magically pop into existence. It's a product of critical thought.Critical thought is profoundly proactive. After all, it forms the basis for challenging beliefs and belief systems. posted 01/07/2008 at 04:42:35
"But you have made a blanket statement about atheism (it being a belief system) that you now seem to want to restrict to particular claims made by a few atheist authors."Those few authors are enjoying a heck of a lot of influence. And my chief concern is that atheism, as a form of skepticism, remain true to the rules--i.e., the rules of skeptical investigation and challenge. Namely, that only those claims made in the service of the logical method be considered immune from counterchallenge. To wit,"Prove it" is not legitimately answered with "No, you DISprove it." The burden of proof principle forbids it.To put it in a way consistent with Dr. Wilson's points, so long as atheism applies and abides by reason, great. Once it starts making claims all over the place, all the while using logic, reason, and science as its cover stories, we have a stealth religion happening."Fair enough, but I think that takes us far afield of the current discussion."Hardly! Reality vs. the perception thereof is one of the main themes in Dr. Wilson's first essay. It"s vital to the discussion. posted 01/07/2008 at 04:16:16
I apologize for the previous cut-and-paste error! That was not an echo you were hearing.... posted 01/07/2008 at 04:00:00
"And belief in gods is not fantastic? Why not?"If the belief in a god or gods is literal--i.e., if we truly believe in an invisible "And belief in gods is not fantastic? Why not?"If the belief in a god or gods is literal--i.e., if we truly believe in an invisible being pulling the marionette strings of eternity, then we're making one hell of a fantastic claim, yes.I, on the other hand, claim (along with a great many Christians) that God is a metaphor, a culture-wide myth, a human construct. Those are not fantastic assertions in either the sense that I'm making any claims for the supernatural OR that they conflict with what we can easily observe. Metaphors aren't supernatural. Culture-wide myths do exist.By the way, when atheists ask me the standard "Why don't you believe in Zeus?" question, I respond that Zeus isn't the popular god of the moment.I regard myths as real in their own right, as true but not factual. Myths are never factual but they can, and do, reflect or represent facts. Facts about human nature, facts about human perceptions, human needs, human aspirations, morality, and so on.I know--it"s fine to see religion as myth but don"t most believers take it literally? No, it"s not my impression that they do. Furthermore, even if (God forbid) we"ve reached a point where the majority of believers are text-literalists, what does that actually mean? Spiritual texts can"t really be taken literally. The chief danger in taking such texts literally is that we lose any chance of ever understanding their essence. posted 01/07/2008 at 03:58:47
Er... that atheist belief systems exist as such.Where's my grammar? (In the kitchen, baking cookies.) posted 01/06/2008 at 15:44:52
How am I calling them equivalent? You're human, I'm human. Does that make us the same person? Obviously not.In insisting that a belief is a belief is a belief, I'm not suggesting that all beliefs are equal. I'm saying that all beliefs are beliefs. And I'm parodying Gertrude Stein, which I'm in no position to do as someone who's virtually poetry-illiterate.I'm making that point in response to the common atheist assertions about absence of belief, about how atheists aren't advancing beliefs but instead challenging them. And so on. In other words, that there's no such thing as an atheist belief system. Well, I've never bought that, and I can't say how much it means to me to have a distinguihsed scientist confirm that atheist belief systems exists as such. In fact, it's kind of funny that his assertion is getting the same general response as mine. After all, I have no scientific credentials, while he has an impeccable resume. I can see why people would wonder where the hell I'm coming from, but I would think they'd tread more softly in his presence. He is, after all, a scientist and an atheist. I'm neither."Nowhere did I assert that a 'that a religious worldview dictates a person's entire worldview'."Assert, suggest--whatever. Then what, pray tell, are you assuming in regard to the believer's worldview? You've presented it as being fundamentally different from the atheist's, yet you have ME as an example of a believer who, outside of the context of religious myth, is in full agreement with people like James Randi, Carl Sagan, and even richard dawkins.posted 01/06/2008 at 15:43:19
"How do you know that?"That's the scientific consensus."Isn't that EXACTLY what the religious do with argument FOR god???"The religious? I'm religious, and I don't accept the existence of God on blind faith nor ask others to do so. Most of the believers I know are not of that literal-minded ilk, either. We're not all of the "God exists because God exists" mindset."Atheists are the ones who say test, test, test."In fact, I'm always saying test, test, test. Which does not make me an atheist.... posted 01/06/2008 at 15:19:58
This is going to sound impolite, but the atheist-on-deathbed motif is something of an urban legend. That doesn't mean it can't happen, or that I'm calling your experiences fiction, but it IS a common theme. The most common form of which has Darwin recanting his theories at the last earthly moment.If there are atheists who soften their stance in the face of death or tragedy, it's because they've elected to share in a common myth--the afterlife idea being an extension of the myth of God's love. Please note that I'm religious and that I therefore consider myths to be very, very real in their own right. Many fit into the category of being true while not being factual.And what is God's love but a metaphor for shared compassion and concern? In other words, when faced with tragedy or death (our own or a loved one's), we need to feel connected with the greater family of our species. At which point we share in a common metaphor. We join the prayer circle. What seemed silly suddenly seems meaningful.It's not a matter of someone's logic fading away, by any means. What could be more logical, really, than turning to a metaphor for universal worth and love? Myths are valuable because of what they represent; their literal truth or lack thereof is of no consequence. Maybe THAT'S what some people discover when their final check comes due. They suddenly realize that much of the myth and ritual MEANS something, and that there is reality in meaning. What is meaningful is real.posted 01/06/2008 at 13:15:09
I already have a sinus headache, actually....Yes, the posting lag is a problem, and I always keep it in mind. I don't expect you to respond to points that haven't appeared yet, and I'm sure you give me the same courtesy.posted 01/06/2008 at 12:38:19
"We're still playing semantic games."No, you are. A quick Google search yields this definition of "belief": "Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something." Nothing to do with faith or with accepting without proof. Belief doesn't imply right or wrong, or valid or invalid. It implies accepting something as true.By insisting on a special word for what YOU believe, you're assuming that the beliefs of religious people are inherently idiotic and YOUR beliefs are inherently rational and noble. Glad you think so.Your third paragraph contains meaningless generalizations. You're suggesting that believers all believe the same thing(s) and that a religious worldview dictates a person's entire worldview, as if religion on the brain renders a person unable to think in any other terms. Really?"So the non-intersecting part of the atheist circle is filled with disbeliefs...like an empty cup full of nothing."Empty cup of nothing. You said it, not me.Disbelief refers to a state of disbelieving something, so what does the plural mean? Does a sad person live in a circle of depressions?You're touting atheism as nothing but a skeptical stance. In theory, sure. In reality, a skeptic displays his prejudices at least as loudly as we inferior, irrational believer sorts. Now, so long as you invoke the logic method, you are safe from counterchallenges. I'm without an excuse to shift the burden of proof to you (assuming I initiated the claim). Understood.Move out of the "prove it" zone, and the protective umbrella is gone--your assertions become fair game. You can insist that every challenge made by an atheist constitutes a disbelief, but that's a transparent way of suggesting your views and assertions are of a higher order than mine. That they are somehow based on, or around, rationality. But logical thinking is a process, a way of testing things. It's not a label we tack on, or a club we join.As far as religion goes, please review Dr. Wilson's essay to see what he means by "stealth religion." posted 01/06/2008 at 12:12:18
"Now are you going to argue that refusing to acknowledge the existence of fairies is a belief system equivalent to 'fairy-ism'?" No, I'm not. A skeptical stance does not constitute a belief system that is in any way equivalent to the claim being challenged.Now, back to what I'm actually saying. In a perfect world, atheism functions totally (or primarily) as a skeptical response to claims made on the behalf of religion. It does not share the burden of proof attached to religious claims so long as it addresses those claims without making *equivalent* counter-claims of its own.I'm not suggesting at all that "Prove it" is an equivalent claim. Rather, it"s an instance of invoking the logical method.However, even when atheism functions properly--i.e., primarily as a skeptical response to religion--it will inevitably STILL contain questions, points, and assertions that function independently of the basic skeptical function/response. Claims which, therefore, exist outside of the protective umbrella of the latter. Claims which, therefore, are open to challenge. THOSE are the claims I refer to.You would have us believe that all claims made on behalf of atheism (or any version thereof) are non-assertions, that they all function in "Prove it" mode. That is not the case. To give an easy and dramatic example, take dawkins' claim that religion is a dangerous virus. Does his assertion in any way stem from a skeptical response to religion? No. Does it facilitate same? Hardly. Is it called for? No, it's a bold (and somewhat wild) assertion that dawkins has sneaked in under the cloak of skeptical inquiry. And here we have returned to the main point of Dr. Wilson's piece.posted 01/06/2008 at 03:35:11
"In other words, the absence of belief IS belief."Actually, if you insist on micro-splitting hairs, yes, it is belief. When I challenge someone to prove an assertion, what beliefs am I expressing? For one, I'm expressing my belief that empirical claims can only be proven true or false through testing. That's a belief. And a fairly recent one, historically.I'm also clearly indicating that I find it necessary to test the claim. If someone tells me he was picked up by a UFO, for instance, I'd ask him to produce evidence. If he claimed he had eggs and waffles for breakfast several hours ago, I likely wouldn't ask him to barf up the proof so that it could be lab-tested. Why demand proof for one and not the other? Because the first claim is fantastic and, if true, requires that we alter our universal perspective just a tad. The second claim, by contrast, is mundane and of a (literally) everyday nature, and its truth or falseness is of zero consequence.To be continued.... posted 01/06/2008 at 02:59:26
But I see nothing wrong with ATHEISM laying claim to (pure) reason."On what basis can it make that claim? Its rejection of the supernatural? You may think it's purely reasonable to reject myth on every level, but a belief system doesn't magically become true and correct and rational by virtue of what it rejects."And because atheists wish to differentiate themselves from these god-based belief systems, they will want to claim rational thinking (at least in this arena) as their own."Sure, they'll want to, but the question is whether or not they're qualified to do so.And you seem to be suggesting that the antithesis of religion is reason. The opposite of religion is atheism. Like many people, you consider atheism the rational choice compared to choosing religion. But what do we know about your brand of atheism beyond the fact that, for you, it symbolizes that choice? Nothing. We can't judge its merits until we find out more about it. "I think any atheist would be swayed by a religionist if the religionist would provide just one scrap of empirical evidence for their position.""Their position (singular)"? Which would be...?I myself have never made a claim, literal or otherwise, for an invisible being who created the universe and who overlooks its functions. I'm a "Kingdom of God is within you" Christian."But by your argument, the burden of proof as to the existence of Santa lies on both my child and ME."No, not unless you're making the same assertion. When I said that the burden of proof works both ways, I mean that it applies to the respective claims of both sides. And, of course, there are usually many more than two sides to any issue, though on the "Net, debate over religion tends to be pro vs. con.posted 01/05/2008 at 23:10:05
Well, it's Dr. Wilson's definition we're supposed to be dealing with, so he's the one to ask, really. It's certainly not my impression that he equates belief with religion--and I know that I'm not doing so. Yes, religion is a belief system, but it's a TYPE of belief system. Just as science is a type of belief system. All beliefs being anything but equal.So, no, belief systems aren't religious (or religion) by definition. Nor are they scientific. Or necessarily rational or irrational.It's obvious that many atheists dislike the b-word (belief), but it's vital that we keep in mind at all times that our brains are interpreters of reality, that perceptions are, consequently, beliefs. Otherwise, we get to believing in the infallibility of our perceptions, and we confuse constructs with facts. Our brains fashion WAYS of seeing reality, because there's only so much data we can take in at a given moment. Our perception of reality is always incomplete, and therefore inherently distorted. When we get to thinking that our perceptions ARE facts, we're confusing our means of discerning reality with reality itself. The B-word keeps us humble. It reminds us that, while reality may be perfect, our ability to process that reality is so far from perfect as to be laughable.When I talk about atheists invoking logic, I'm referring to the cloak that Dr. Wilson writes about. New atheists are constantly citing rationality, science, truth, wisdom, etc. as their authorities, and these things sure make for an attractive resume, but we have to look beyond that cloak to make sure it isn't functioning as a smokescreen. The alternative is to accept, on blind faith, that a given atheistic argument is sound and factual because the claimant SAYS so. Is that really what you'd want anyone to do? posted 01/05/2008 at 16:21:12
It depends on which atheist belief system we're talking about. Dr. Wilson has already done a far better job than I could do--his first essay gives some terrific examples. That, plus I don't want to go any further in paraphrasing his ideas, so that I don't mangle them any further than I may have already.Atheism IS a belief system--the "absence of belief isn't belief" idea is nonsense. If atheists had no beliefs, then to what in the world are they comparing religious beliefs? To test the validity of an assertion or group of assertions, we have to test them AGAINST other ideas--specifically, ideas that have survived critical testing. An atheist without beliefs has nothing against which to test religious claims and therefore is in no position to judge. It can't be had both ways--we can't denounce someone else's views as nonsensical (or, a la dawkins, as dangerous) and then insist we have no POV of our own.The whole stance is analogous to my saying, "I had no opinion about the movie whatsoever. But, boy, did that movie suck."What claims need testing? Depends on the atheist or group thereof. Dr. Wilson wrote about the tendency of new atheists to condemn religion in highly black and white terms (purely evil, with few or no redeeming qualities) and to liken it to a virus. Those (evil, virus-like) are claims, are they not?He warns against falling into the trap of comparing things in absolute, all-or-nothing, good-guys-wear-white-hats terms, and damned if he hasn't described New Atheism to a tee. Note that New Atheism is a type thereof, and a very general label, at that. But because we're talking about ideas--and popular ideas, at that--and large groups of people, there's no choice but to generalize. Dr. Wilson uses my approach of trying to balance very specific examples with broad assertions--it's a kind of triangulation, really. posted 01/05/2008 at 15:19:13
Wondering,He labels atheism (in its various forms) as having the *potential* to become a stealth religion or series thereof. Any belief system does, according to his definition. A very interesting idea, and one that gives a careful reader much to think about.As Mr. Wilson wrote last time, "The discerning liberal (or any intellectual) would be a fool to assume that atheism stands for pure reason, just because it doesn't invoke the gods." Amen. Or, as I put it, nothing is rational or logical by default.And, sure enough, you write (as if eager to prove his point), "Are you implying that the existence of gods is a proveable fact, and atheism distorts this?"In other words, right off the bat, you're pointing out that atheism, unlike religion, makes no claims for a God or Gods. As if atheism is therefore rendered immune from charges of distorting the facts of the real world. A belief system, however, has to do a LOT more than eschew superstition to earn rational-thinking kudos. It has to test its own claims, for instance.Furthermore, he wasn't talking about what people of faith assert--he's talking about what atheists assert. The burden of proof is a two-way street, which means my side AND YOURS."I am stunned. If you're going to toss science and reason into the irrational-belief-system pot with religion and nationalism, then we might as well go back to living in caves. Do you even know what science is?"I'm guessing yes. From his Huff-Po bio: "He is a distinguished professor of biology and anthropology at Binghamton University, part of the State University of New York."As for his tossing science and reason in with religion and nationalism, we're back to his point that all belief systems have the potential to become stealth religions. Okay? posted 01/05/2008 at 08:32:11
Mr. Wilson identifies atheism as a belief system that has the potential to become a religion if its ideas and assertions aren't properly tested, if they are simply accepted as true, never mind how they play (or don't play) in the real world. Which is too often the case around these parts. To wit, many neo-atheist assertions are presumed to be true simply because they counter ideas that are demonstrably false--never mind that nothing is true by contrast or default. And atheist assertions are often presumed to be true when formed in a sort of accordance with tested notions, simply because they thus *appear* to buttress known facts. But nothing is true because of an apparent consistency with a fact--something can take on the shape or the tone of a tested theory but contain none of its logic or consistency. We only know that something is true or false by testing it. Ideas don't come with credentials--they have to acquire them."To imply that asking a theist for proof of the basic proposition 'there is a god' before being willing to accept it is 'stealth religion' is an odd view of the role of faith and reality."I'm not aware that he's implying that at all. And he's not talking about the assertions of the faithful but, rather, the assertions made by atheists. Your side engages in infinitely more activity than challenging my side to prove God's literal existence (a claim many of us are NOT making, incidentally). To wit, your side asserts that religion is dangerous, that faith is dangerous, that fundamentalism is the true form of religion, and so on. These constitute claims, and, as such, they are testable. And on a per-claim basis.Asking theists for proof that God exists (IF they assert as much, and only if) is utterly justified. If your side were doing no more than asking that question (along with logically related questions), there'd be no need for Mr. Wilson's essay. But there is a very sore need for it. posted 01/05/2008 at 02:42:51
HeevenSteven,I believe (pun intended) that you're splitting hairs. To believe something is to hold it to be true. That's all it means. I suspect you're invoking the imaginary diffence between believing and knowing--as in, KNOWING that Darwin was correct because evidence supports his main views, vs. BELIEVING that God exists, because one can't possibly know as much in the absence of evidence. Sorry, but belief is involved in both instances. The real distinction lies between beliefs that are based on the best evidence presently available vs. beliefs that are based on wishful thinking, tradition, superstition, etc.Both are beliefs, but one is rational and probably correct; the latter is irrational and likely NOT to be true. The problem with labeling one belief as a fact and the other as a mere belief is that it second-guesses probability. All assertions have to be tested. And retested. And tested again. The virtue of scholarship, scientific or otherwise, is that it endlessly subjects ideas and beliefs to testing--that way, what doesn't hold up is either modified or, at worst, tossed out. The moment we decide to accept something--anything--as absolutely true, as something incapable of being wrong, we have become fundamentalist in our thinking. Even the most valuable and rigorously-tested principle becomes a thing of magical thinking when removed from critical testing.I think that's mainly what Mr. Wilson is saying--that anything treated religiously (or like a religion) becomes religion."Isn't it the job of science to be suspicious of all arguments?"Yes. As I'm always suggesting, nothing is exempt from critical testing, so we're on the same page. Problem is, very many of the atheists at this site invoke logic as if it represented a side to be on. Or a club to belong to. When logic is something we apply. It's a process, not a mode of thinking, though the latter has literally been suggested again and again by both bloggers and comment-section scribes. posted 01/05/2008 at 01:27:05
Whitewashing and Cherry Picking Religion
Your horrific experience was not the norm, but I sense you want very much to assert that it somehow is. You're generalizing from what happened to you. You're applying your case to everyone else's, and even writing as elegant and intelligent as yours can't transcend such a fallacy. Please consider that there's a vital difference between suggesting that something doesn't represent the spirit of a given religion and suggesting that it is not related in any way. Christian crimes, yes, are Christian crimes any way you slice them. Just as the genocidal behavior committed in the name of Darwin--while, at best, perversions of Darwin's theories--is still behavior enacted in the name of Darwin. But it's crucial to make the distinction between acts that truly stem from Darwin's writings and those that don't, as well as behavior that is consistent with Christ's teachings and behavior that is not. You seem to treat that distinction as meaningless."When you say you are a Christian, you become everything that is or was Christianity."In other words, all Christians are responsible for the behavior of all other Christians? If you mean that in the sense that I have a duty to acknowledge that much evil has been done (and continues to be done) in the name of C., then I agree. If you're suggesting that I'm literally responsible for the behavior of other Christians, sorry, that's frankly absurd. I call myself an American, but that doesn't mean I supported invading Iraq or that I'm personally responsibility for our poor standing in the world. I didn't vote for Bush either time.By insisting as much, I'm neither making excuses for those who did vote for Bush, nor am I suggesting our country isn't responsible for the evil it's done. I am suggesting, however, that people are individuals. You were born into a cult and desire to make that a metaphor for the Christian experience. Just as illogically, I could do the same with my agnostic upbringing. Except that cult narratives are readily accepted as universally applicable; agnostic narratives are not. posted 01/05/2008 at 03:29:19
Faint Light for the New Year
Wondering,Please learn to read. In your eagerness to ridicule the poster, you skipped over three qualifying phrases. Don't be so intent on showing someone up that all you demonstrate is your inability to successfully read a couple of short paragraphs. posted 01/05/2008 at 03:59:24
"no right, no wrong..."Then why are so many all fired up over the behavior of evangelical Christians? On the basis of what?If there's no right, no wrong, I mean. posted 01/05/2008 at 03:33:53
"Atheists don't control any form of the media - point out one TV show or major movie that contains a blatantly atheist message."TV--The Simpsons.Movie--The Golden Compass.Bestselling book--The God Delusion.You could at least have made it challenging.... posted 01/04/2008 at 06:13:43
Huckabee, Romney Courted Evangelicals Sunday: Christian Conservatives Close To Half of Republican Caucus-goers
Well, though, isn't that better than if, say, candidates had to make promises to powerful donors to get elected? Which would make them beholden to such people?At worst, we could see lawmakers dropping the ball on protecting the environment or ensuring toy safety or ensuring that workers have one or two rights to their person--stuff like that--because they'd be in a position of having to pay back the rich and powerful.So, be happy that all we have are religious requirements. God help this country if it ever becomes a place where you've got to have (or be able to get) dough to get in office. That would really suck.posted 01/05/2008 at 08:46:31
Really? We have a state church now?posted 01/02/2008 at 11:42:29
Romney's Founders
Your points lack any point. posted 12/13/2007 at 13:28:21
Hm. "jesus," but "Europe"?Selective capitalization?Not in MY america! posted 12/13/2007 at 00:00:05
"Established," in First Amendment context, also means favored. Promoted over others. An established church is, in effect, the official church.The church (er, Church) is therefore a country club. The Country Club. Nowadays, class membership has replaced Church membership. If you think about it....And I just thought of a distinction worth making--many are equating a state church with a theocracy, but theocracy seems to mean rule from (or based on) sacred texts. A system is which only ONE religion exists. By contrast, a society with a state church may very well allow other churches to exist. And to what extent the Church would dictate or influence matters of state isn't (no pun intended) set in stone. posted 12/12/2007 at 23:58:13
It's all over pop culture, so all I can suggest is that you watch (or listen to)examples. And the fashionable faith-bashing form of the moment is generational in nature. Notice the trend of picking on "organized" religion? And the trend of insisting there's some vast difference between spiritual and religious? (I'm sure the difference is a "nuanced" one, to use the most misused adjective of the moment.)Reading between the lines a little, we see that the real target is traditional, sit-in-church, sing-from-hymnals religion. That stopped being cool long ago. The Simpsons is one of the popular forces that helped establish "organized" religion as a metaphor for conformity, as anti-rock-and-roll, though that point of view predates the show. As ever, popular TV shows reflect ideas as much as they promote them.The main problems with old-style (I mean, organized) religion: No Goddess hymns allowed, "warfare" metaphors accepted, God the Father (along with faith, one of the two religious F-words), suit and tie, formal order of service, organ music, and so on.Choirs and organs and chimes, oh, my!The Boomer concept of church is New Agey, less formal, entertainment oriented, with less "judgmental" services, and featuring a shared sense of snarky superiority in our being "different." Different meaning any departure from the way of life documented in 50-year-old sitcoms like Leave It to Beaver.It explains how and why it's possible, in a country where most people are religious, for religion-bashing to exist on a popular level. As we speak, some new (read: retreaded) version of pop faith is coming out. And, no, not "retarded," though that'll work, too.Meanwhile, I"m enjoying the whole state/church argument, if only to marvel over the misreadings (on both the left and right extremes) of a tersely-worded, utterly straightforward clause. I've learned, among other things, that to avoid establishing something, the govt. is required to ban it from mention and consideration. posted 12/12/2007 at 23:35:39
I sense there's little point in arguing with him, even nicely. He has all the answers, and that's that.This site is filled with people whose concept of history is "It happened THIS way and THAT way, and THIS document reflected THESE ideas, and for THESE reasons, and THAT's that." And whatever THEIR take is, it has to be the right one, because there ain't more than one way to be looking at any one thing. Good folk wisdom there.Luckily for all of us, the evolution of ideas is way, way more complicated than that. But God help anyone who suggests the founders--in spite of abundant evidence to the effect--were influenced by a myriad of ideas.Of course they were influenced by Christian ideas, among others. It's the "among others" part that seems beyond so many otherwise smart people. They try to process stereo reality in mono mode.Inclusive thinking--what a concept. posted 12/12/2007 at 23:03:47
Um... because people are allowed to think for themselves and form their own conclusions.Or hadn't you heard? posted 12/12/2007 at 22:56:19
"'There are very definite and strong Christian ideas that underpin the American government.'This predicate does not lead to the conclusion that Christianity influenced the Constitution."Yes, it does! That's precisely what it means.posted 12/12/2007 at 22:53:56
Oops. "According to that playbook," I menat. posted 12/12/2007 at 12:40:00
"Something that is generally lacking in these discussions is that Separation of Church and State was designed to protect the Church."Right! The clause in question is specifically about not having a Church of America. Which is why I wonder who came up with this stuff about government not so much as acknowledging the existence of religion (nothing you said, of course). It's about govt. not promoting or favoring any one religion over another--which, of course, doesn't prohibit the representation of faith; just unequal representation. Endorsement.I often wonder what life would be like if, instead of having a baby over religion in the "political square," people rioted anytime a politician tossed a baseball for the TV cameras. You know--imminent Sports-ocracy.Or Imminent Big-Business-ocracy, to the extent Congress passes laws regarding corporations. Can't have that. (Actually, I think I just tapped into the prime neocon position.)Only laws that FAVOR business can be permitted according to that playback.If we're to believe the only alternative to a state church is a government that's not allowed to deal with (or even deal with the fact OF) religion, then someone's conned us but good.However, you've got it completely correct--I agree with every point you make. Thanks for making them. posted 12/12/2007 at 12:38:53
"Tolerant believers of any faith provide a ready pool of potential intolerant ones."Excuse me????I've heard many variations on that one, and it has yet to make sense."When Senators tell us we don't have to deal with climate change because 'God is still up there' (Inhoffe); well then many of us know that, sweet Jesus, we have a problem."Yes, Steven, we have a problem--that of politicians serving the interests of polluters, damn the environment. Those folks put them in office, and they pay them back by ignoring global warming. If you seriously think they're doing it because they believe God is in the house, I have some lunar craters at 83 percent discount, but only until Friday.I don't suppose it's possible politicians use the God stuff as an excuse for serving those who bankrolled their campaigns? Do we really think they're above such deception, especially given our willingness to doubt (with good reason) everything else they offer?Like, when did these con artists ever speak from their convictions? posted 12/12/2007 at 02:21:58
" It's the idiot leaders."Not the people who vote for them?posted 12/11/2007 at 23:11:49
Actually, I meant to post this elsewhere--my eyes aren't so good my age. Someone had two posts in a row of "religion sucks" posts by the Founding Fathers.My bad. I actually get lost on these pages sometimes. And this is a comparatively well-set-up board. ( posted 12/11/2007 at 23:10:02
There is, if we consider my actual point. Namely, if the most popular show on TV presents an atheistic point of view, whom are they presenting it for? It's not as if The Simpsons were airing on a low-power pirate TV station out in a mountain someplace.Do you honestly think popular culture would be full of anti-faith shows, songs, comics, etc. if the point of view being served weren't a widespread one? The "Simpsons" writers aren't tenured--they either keep the ratings coming, or they're out of a job. posted 12/11/2007 at 23:03:22
"Scientifically illiterate," I wrote. posted 12/11/2007 at 22:59:43
Wow. Great points! Great post.I, too, wonder a little about why the essay is telling us all of these things. That is, Romney's crime was not in suggesting that Christian ideas influenced our founders--his crime lies in suggesting that those ideas were the sole (or worse, the proper) ones. The founders were influenced by ideas from everywhere. They apparently believed in keeping the best and most rational ideas from various faiths and philosophies and discarding the rest. Which sounds like the perfect plan to me.A lot of people are using Romney's narrowminded attitude as proof that any acknowledgment of religion on the part of government is wrong and dangerous. But it's only wrong and dangerous when fascists do so.What if Romney had said something like, "We musn't ignore the influence of various religious beliefs and principles on our way of government. Which is not, in any way, to suggest that we are a relilgious nation, let alone specifically a Christian one"? I think, had he said something to that effect, I might consider voting for the guy.However, the probability is on par with pigs sprouting wings or Britney Spears getting a PhD.posted 12/11/2007 at 22:07:13
"Religion is for the weak and cowardly."Oh, gosh. How can I be more like you, O Tough Guy?posted 12/11/2007 at 18:21:51
"It's clear now that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution are both subversive documents and part of the War on Christianity and must be..." etc.This is poor satire and an equally poor straw argument. In my opinion. posted 12/11/2007 at 18:17:16
It's gotten to where I don't know who's being insulted in this thread....Thank God for the "Parent" function. posted 12/11/2007 at 18:15:45
Especially ones provided in cyberspace for easy cutting, copying, and pasting. posted 12/11/2007 at 18:13:55
Your qualifiers (all of them pretty standard) make me suspicious. They're too close to the I Don't Care What People Do So Long As They Stay in Another Neighborhood cliche. Which is the essence of bigotry. Segregation by any other name is just as indefensible a policy.And I really mean that. What are we telling people when we demand they keep their customs and beliefs and ways and smelly socks off our turf? Where the hell is good ol' American tolerance in such an attitude?The age-old nonsense of tellilng someone you're fine with him so long as he zips up--it shouldn't pass muster on the left for for two seconds. Yet, we seem to be in the middle of Liberal Intolerance: The Musical.And I fail completely to understand why, if you have such disregard for Christian beliefs, you care for one moment whether or not people have what you consider an acceptable relationship to Christ. Don't write off a group of people as fools and then proceed to tell them how to act. It's not a high-EQ thing to do. posted 12/11/2007 at 18:12:30
Oops. I meant, "And IF I responded, 'Nobody's being hateful....'"posted 12/11/2007 at 18:01:55
Collectively, cyber-atheists ridicule and condemn and stereotype believers, and they do it with enough fervency to suggest they're fulfilling an entrance requirement for the Faith-Bashers' Club. If this isn't hate (or something motivated by same), what is it?Rather than questioning me for calling it hate, explain the behavior in question. If someone talked out YOU in such a fashion, you wouldn't hesitate to label it as hate. Or so I strongly suspect. And I responded, "Nobody's being hateful," you'd accept that? posted 12/11/2007 at 18:01:12
"Not certain what Einstein meant."Maybe he meant what he said...? posted 12/11/2007 at 17:44:56
Which is, um, why the latest atheist titles are hawked all over the MSM?Which is why The Simpsons (isn't it the most popular show on TV or close to same) makes fun of religion in precisely the same manner as people at this blog? Some of whom quote from the show?Why do I sense a disconnect here? posted 12/11/2007 at 17:43:49
"Do you know many liberals?"LOL! I feel sorry for people who assume that anyone who criticizes the left must be an enemy.Yes, I know many liberals. Lots of them! I see one every day when I look in the mirror, and most of my friends fall under that heading. Politically, I'm to the left of the Clintons (though I love them dearly). Because I'm liberal, I worry a lot about the bigotry we're broadcasting these days. Just as society has become too danged liberal for conservatives, society is becoming too, shall we say, common for many liberals. Too vernacular, if you prefer. (I'd say "popular," but no one knows the meaning of that word anymore.) We're threatened by the growing empowerment of plain, average folk, and so we cling to our hip, retro jazz and watch sitcoms with "sex" in the title. Too many common voices in the public square. Attacking religion is a symbolic way of protesting the over-vernacularizing of our culture. Our snobbish ways are being threatened. Eek!We are living down to the (too true) stereotype of the left as the realm of clueless big-word users. Our foes (not without cause) are laughing at us. posted 12/11/2007 at 16:06:52
"Huh?"I see. Try to succeed in cyberspace by saying positive things about religion.Go ahead. Then tell me how it works out. posted 12/11/2007 at 15:58:16
I feel bad for Hitchens, Dawkins, Harris, and those others. Apparently, they didn't make a dime from their best-selling titles....I do think before I speak. I'm trying to set an example for folks like you. posted 12/11/2007 at 15:57:23
Oh, re your first question--many answers, so little time.Much of it is a rant against the middle class and middle class values, which is old news. The left is famous for its disconnect with average people and average values. Think NPR.And middle-class-bashing, thanks in part to rock culture, has become a popular institution. "Simpsons," MTV, even TVLand. What was once very countercultural is now old hat. Which of course is always how it works. The Beat poets were showing courage to pick on the vernacular values of their time; these days, it takes guts not to.And we have a closely related trend wherein anything "traditional" in religion is denounced as shallow (or worse). Witness the flood of spirituality-vs.-religion entries and comments. Which all come down to the cliche that organized religion is bad but New Agey religion is good. The former meaning our parents' version of faith--going to church, singing hymns, saying "Our Father," and so on. Too Their Generation for us.In the post-Moral-Majority period, religion is the easiest, most convenient target ever handed to the left. Of course, we're required to believe that every nut who says "We are a Christian nation" is two days from making that happen. But we can't let rationality get in the way of hysteria. It's not American.The behavior of far-right believers also opens the door to bashing middle class values, though we have to pretend that mainline believers are directly (or indirectly) accountable for the actions of abortion-clinic bombers. That's why we're always hearing the "Why don't good Christians speak up?" stuff. Well, why don't we all speak up about things that are wrong--at which point, the wrong things magically vanish. Not.Never mind that mainline C.'s do, and continue to, speak up about such things. But who gets the mike? The MSM is too busy covering the latest Jesus-on-toast story to cover religion. posted 12/11/2007 at 15:54:43
"Were you at all troubled by Mitt's speech?"Not as much as I would have been had I not heard it before. I mean, it's pretty par for the far-right, "Christian Nation" loonies. The usual lies, and no support offered for them. What distinguishes Romney's blather-athon is the way he contradicted himself several times per clause. I describe the essence of his blather as "We are not a Christian nation; however, we ARE a Christian nation." The man is an idiot.Probably not a horribly evil person himself (I'm just guessing), but one who will gladly sell his soul to people who are. For power. posted 12/11/2007 at 15:33:13
Problem is, they make up 99.9 percent of progressives in cyberspace. Note that I qualified my statement by saying "these pages."posted 12/11/2007 at 15:23:40
The problem, HeevenSteven, is that I do not belong to the community of Bible literalists. Hence, why should I read books based on the weird presumption that, because I'm a believer, I'm a slave to religious myth, and so on and so forth? posted 12/11/2007 at 10:50:21
I would need a lot more evidence to convince me a theocracy is imminent. I think that what we're mostly seeing is Repubs playing to a very gullible demographic. And I think we're assigning WAY too much power to that small group. Two examples come to mind. 1) We have the myth that a small percentage of voters put Bush in office, when in reality Bush would never have gotten into office--even with all the stolen votes--had he not had a significant base of support. Meaning we can't blame it all on far-right C.'s. SOMEONE other than them (they?) voted for the clown.2) We have the idea that the same demographic is primarily responsible for the erosion of abortion rights and opposition to stem-cell research. Isn't it far more likely that we live in a highly science-illiterate culture and that too many people are willing to thoughtlessly relinquish the right of reproductive choice (never considering the possibility that the issue might affect THEM?). Huge numbers of people will knowingly support wrong things, unless they envision themselves suffering the consequences at some point. Then, of course, it's a different matter.Back to topic (sorry!), even if the majority of people were O.K. with religious rule (and it wouldn't surprise me, given that the average person has no idea how our govt. is supposed to work), no one would be able to agree on WHICH church. Mob rule is fine with a lot of people, but it's got to be THEIR mob. Which, ironically, is probably the only thing that saves us from mob rule. In a free country, people may favor a Hitler figure, but it's got to be THEIR Hitler figure, not someone else's.Similarly, church rule is only going to happen when enough people can agree on which church. And try, in our country, to get ten people to agree on what brand of pop to bring to the potluck, let alone which church to put in charge. posted 12/11/2007 at 10:28:13
"Ask the question - why were the founders so weary and suspicious of religion?"Hopefully they'd answer that it's because the founders were escaping the tyranny of a state church.And hopefully THEY'D ask, in return, why so many continue to be weary and suspicious of religion long after the threat of a state church has passed.You see, what we REALLY need are people with the spine to start challenging the Church of America myth, to loudly object to the practice of attacking faith based on a false threat (much as Bush attacked Iraq by way a nonexistent missile threat).You're free to believe the Repub Party is analogous to the Church of England, and I'm free to find that idea humorous and overblown. posted 12/11/2007 at 09:52:50
You concluded that how? Because I talked primarily about religious rights? And why not? Everything doesn't have to be written from, or in regard to, an atheist perspective. That's virtually all we hear on these pages.I'm trying to provide some balance. posted 12/11/2007 at 09:45:00
"I am willing to tolerate religion, as long as it is not forced down my throat."Precisely my feeling regarding richard-dawkins-style secularism!Re "under God," our founders were worried about infinitely bigger state/church issues, such as not repeating the British model. So I think they would have laughed at the Pledge controversy and shifted their thoughts to something worth pondering. posted 12/11/2007 at 09:21:31
Yes, the evolution of ideas. A very confusing concept to most people. The popular myth holds that ideas simply drop from the sky or pop up from the ground. Just ask richard dawkins, who thinks the concept of human equality is something one figures out with a little bit of rational consideration. He falsely reduces a concept many centuries (no, millennia) in the making to a matter of common sense.I'm afraid the idea of idea evolution is too abstract for many. They don't mean to miss out on it, they just do.posted 12/11/2007 at 09:17:41
Yes, but the FUNDING fathers did.