All Comments (28)

Prof. Stevens-Arroyo: With all due respect, Sir, you lost me! I'd love to know what your essay was all about except for the disguised Atheist bashing - that part I got.

"All nonbelievers are saying is that there would appear to be no supernatural world and no god;
and nobody has ever made a convincing case that there is a god or a supernatural world."

Anyone who could, shouldn't need to.

And that's the real thing about it, isn't it?

The rest is getting along. :)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KeZB2EsPqGE&feature=related

Meg, I'm the first to admit that certain of the doctrines I accept are wacky. That's why I judge others only on their behavior and on how they treat others.

Brian, The only thing you and I really disagree about is the source of the world between our ears.

Viejita del Oeste:

All nonbelievers are saying is that there would appear to be no supernatural world and no god;
and nobody has ever made a convincing case that there is a god or a supernatural world.

There would seem to be a real world out there where real things happen;and the other world between our ears where anything can happen. The imagination is bigger than all outdoors.

Viejita del Oeste:

I guess I was maybe hoping for a Mark Twain moment...it was chuckling about the other guy's religion that had him realize that his own was probably equally questionable. But then, not everybody is Mark Twain.

The reality that people do the craziest things for religion would, (one would think), have religious people examine their own beliefs more critically. Most don't of course. It's the other guy's religion that's wacky. Ones own faith is always the true one.

"Those cultural forms – which had been created by faith – were now supposed to have been contaminated because of faith. "

Well, here's the problem, Professor. What's really been contaminated is in fact the church-state-separation, the erosion of and now attack upon which has *turned* imposition of Christian religious symbols onto our schools and public policy, much to the disenfranchisement of others... Including liberal Christians... into something that's *not* power-neutral celebrations of our many cultural backgrounds, but a marking of territory by certain religious-aligned power blocs.

(How's that for an unwieldy sentence.)

Point being that in turning even 'heritage' into a part of the culture war, it's no longer *religiously neutral* to put these things up... In a climate where there are people battling to prevent, say, Wiccans from being presented as anything *but* the 'evil witches from someone's view of the Bible, ...it's not non-Christians who have made all these things *loaded and Constitutionally-dubious, but quite the opposite.

They in fact treat all *diversity education* as hostile to their beliefs and try to exclude it. Unless maybe it's got Jesus in it.

There have always been signs of obligatory Christian public piety out there, yes, but only , and increasingly, since the Christian-right-declared "Culture War," have these things become so very *uncomfortable.*

And, yes, that's a shame, but I think it's time to take a step back from all that religious conflict, ...when secure in our government's religious neutrality, *then* we can lighten up about these things again. And enjoy them.

It's turned into some kind of form of intimidation, which it's frankly always been... In my own childhood the little displays of piety, both officially-sanctioned and brought by certain teachers, seemed to align the public school establishment with a local church that was abusing kids, ...people who were doubtless sure it was a good idea to scream at kids for imagined 'sins' certainly didn't help promote a safe environment: on the contrary, they helped enforce the silence.

It's one reason I'm in no hurry to see religious displays of any kind there. To kids, these symbols and pronouncements, in a nation where religious, and religiously-justified abuse is all too common, the school often *is* the state.

Likewise, if Christianist-based policies create a hostile atmosphere which forces religious minorities to hide or otherwise be isolated, then there's no telling what may be going on there...

You have kids like Tempest Smith, driven to suicide by hostile teachers and fellow students, with no real recourse to people that kids are supposed to be able to trust... And you have people claiming to be Wiccans actually using Christianist propaganda to have their way with kids, in an atmosphere of secrecy... invariably unknown to the local Wiccan community, who can't be a resource to tell people, "OK, that's not Wicca, that's a crazy dude acting out a Jack Chick comic."

You have Christian groups that actively-advocate child-beating and 'exorcism' torture if a kid plays a video game or gets complex PTSD from constant abuse, ...and the kids think the school and government approves, cause they say 'God,' and the context of the abuse says 'God,' too.

You have outcast kids who feel they can't escape what they're subjected to actually *attacking the churches and schools* cause they feel so *darn hemmed-in and trapped.* And that hemming-in only escalates when people think the solution to the problem is *more control.*

I mean, when *I* was a weird kid, there were *relatively-harmless outlets.* Nowadays it's all under lockdown.. that's a wyrm I saw beginning to turn as a young punk rocker... A lot of folks started dropping out cause things were getting *damn serious,* drug wars and culture wars and guns and drugs... all with the media saying it had something to do with punk rock in those ways...

More religious displays does *not* mean more hope, which is a common element to what's been going on with this 'culture war.'

Even kids in bad situations need *hope,* and particular religion does not always represent real hope, as some may insist it does. I like to think I have an appreciation for many Christian cultures... Handel? Ooh, sweet.

Still have trouble looking at a cross or a Bible quote without a little bit of fear of something stupid and oppressive being connected to it.

Pretty notoriously in the 80's, it got hard to see an American *flag* in certain contexts without expecting some skinhead or redneck or cop who thinks a badge lets him throw the first stone to come along and do Gods-know-what. You get people thinking from this alliance of religion and state power that it's the right thing to do to try and 'rape you straight' if the mood takes em.

And that's from someone pretty darn committed to Lady Liberty. Mind you, I love the flag... Nothing quite moves like that. Nail it down, and you have blocks and lines... Let it move and you have something wonderful.

To *really* have diversity, it must, must, must be in a context of free people sharing.

Otherwise, it turns into something else.

And that's what's tainted all this.

BGone, you wrote:
"Want to be left alone with your beliefs? Work for religion to become like astrology treated by government as though it wasn't there."
You and I both agree, then, that the problem is really that some religious groups try (and too often succeed) to get government to support their efforts at coercing others to follow their path. That's politics, not religion, and it needs to be fought as politics and power-mongering, not as faith. (By the way, I am active in that particular battle.) The faith itself isn't hurting anyone.
BTW I won't bring Nancy Reagan into the mix.

Meg, I don't get what you're trying to say. Do you claim that if I believe one set of unverifiable religious truths, then I have to accept them all? Even many Muslims believe that the acts of terrorists are not deserving of any supernatural reward. Secularism is about respecting each other's beliefs (or lack thereof). Nothing in religion demands that I make excuses for criminal acts.

Once again, not all atheists, agnostics or secularists are alike, and neither are those of us who believe in a higher power. That kind of reductionism may make you think you've won an argument, but it's a red herring at best.

Professor:

It's time to petition the pope to return the gold looted from your ancestors. Then there won't be such a great amount of money for leading the multitudes including you to hell and you may avoid hell altogether, as just one good reason to do it.

It's worth a try. All he can do is say no isn't it? I'm curious to hear why not. How long does one need to hold the property of others before title is gained? How many times does loot have to be 'fenced' before it's free and clear?

Meg:

Not so fast with the 9/11 gang isn't in paradise.

The Bible clearly says the hell and paradise are one and the same place.

While hanging on the cross Jesus turned to the good thief and said, "this day you will be with me in paradise."

Later on in the Bible it says Jesus descended into hell after His death on the cross.

We know thieves go to hell. Did the [not really very good thief for he got caught] good thief go to paradise with Jesus or Jesus go to hell with him?

Bible says they both went to the same place. There's just one 'absolute truth' based conclusion, hell and paradise are one and the same place.

So the 9/11 gang may well be in paradise. Now about being with Allah.

http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul relies on sacred scriptures to prove Moses sold his soul to the biggest Devil of them all, Lucifer.

One last conclusion. Lucifer has many names or titles as one cares to call them, God, Lord God of Israel, Allah, Jehovah, Yahweh and Creator God to name a few.

If we can't believe the Bible then what are we to believe?

Soja John Thaikattil, Sydney, Australia:

You write;

"The answer to the contempt with which some anti-theists speak about believers is for all believers to become strong believers of science, and to accept it as a means of understanding the physical universe; to embrace science as work in progress towards that end and be fully aware of the limitations of the scientific process itself and its limitation in explaining everything. It is also vital for believers to know that reason and faith in God are not contradictory. Faith in God is beyond human reasoning but it does not exclude human reason. There are many aspects of life that is beyond normal rational and intellectual reasoning and yet it expresses truth which cannot be expressed as empirical scientific formula".

I say;
The are no aspects of life beyond normal rational intellectual reasoning. Everything is there to be understood,given time and human endeavor.

Unless of course you are referring to the para-normal or the supernatural,which as far as we know are products of the human imagination, which is limitless in its ability to conjure up all manner of spooky thingies.

Viejita del Oeste.

Hi. Yes, there are so many who buy into astrology,it's amazing. But it has no clout.
Not here anyway. Religion has clout.

Religion is scary. Especially since 9/11. Tell me Viejita, do you believe the 9/11 martyrs are sitting around with Allah today,in paradise, enjoying also the reward of 72 virgins?
As a religious person do you believe it or not?

My point is the terrorists believed it. Believed it enough to explode themselves all over the World Trade Center and die horrible deaths.
That's blind faith; the greatest virtue of religion is to believe it without question.

But you and I can both chuckle at their idiocy. we both know that they are NOT in paradise;we both know they were deluded,don't we? Well, don't we?

Professor Stevens-Arroyo again demonstrates his complete lack of knowledge about history and then writes an essay referencing his own lack of knowledge. The French Revolution was not atheist nor were its leaders atheist. Even the Jacobins, the most radical of the revolutionaries, were primarily Deists. During the rule of the Jacobins (which lasted only 10 months), there was a very nasty subgroup of atheists called the Hebertistes who did set out to de-Christianize society. Robespierre executed all of them in April and May of 1794. Then, on July 8, 1794, Robespierre declared the Deist Supreme Being as the hallmark of the French Revolution.

You might want to read something other than anti-atheist hate material before you post Professor.

Viejita del oeste:

Religion and astrology have a lot in common, no way to prove or disprove as a simple example. They are both predominant beliefs among world population. There they diverge.

No one is threatening anyone with hell for not accepting h/her astrological beliefs. And, most important of all, astrologers and their followers are taxed as though there was no such thing.

Want to be left alone with your beliefs? Work for religion to become like astrology treated by government as though it wasn't there.

That's highly unlikely. Why is the question and the answer isn't because religion is so widespread for astrology is probably more widespread than religion. There has to be a different answer.

Maybe it's the notion that the non religious aren't moral? Maybe it's threats of hell made to children that leads to the perception that the non religious are all going to hell? Maybe it's the fact that great fortunes can be made preaching the Gospel, unaccounted, tax free, tax deductible from tax exempt facilities, (churches, temples, synagogues, mosques and tabernacles)? Maybe it's the political power that money gained preaching the Gospel brings? Why religion is so different from astrology is probably a conglomerate of all of these and more.

The average person is hardly capable of the analysis necessary to just understand what they are saying when they say "I believe." There are far too many of the quills from the porcupine of religion stuck in their minds before they are ten years old. Not so for astrology.

Make religion like astrology, kinda private and ignored by government and folks like me won't have much to talk about. You don't hear me ragging on astrologers do you? The non religious are likely non astrology too and laugh at both their suckers. Astrology is benign. But when my government and all that comes with government is threatened by tax exempt wealthy preachers like Pat Robertson don't be surprised at a little venom from the non believers arena.

Then of course I must ask if you have given what you believe some real deep thought? Yes, we can't prove or disprove God. We can do probabilities and we can ask if what religions based on sacred scriptures claims God wants is consistent.

Just one. What's the probability the being in the burning bush was God? How about the likelihood it was Devil, Lucifer even? What are the consequences of saying Devil is God?

Sacred scriptures contain the words of:
a) God
b) Devil
c) Confidence men saying "believe me and render to God or you're going to hell"?
d) other________________

Look at it this way: I think you believe something (that there is no G-d) that may be ultimately harmful to your pursuit of satisfaction in life. You are equally if not more sure that I believe something that is at worst harmful and at best a waste of time.
The opposite of faith isn't active disbelief, it is indifference. Neither of us is indifferent to the question of G-d or no G-d. I accept that you don't believe in Him, but you don't seem able to accept that some of us do. Science is no help, since it is impossible to prove or disprove.
Don't let the James Dobsons and Jerry Falwells of the world convince you that their style of religion is the only one out there.

Gary,
Huckabee used to be a Baptist minister. Asking him about his religion is as relevant as asking Romney about his business career or McCain about his experience in the military. Other than that, you've got a point.

Toby,
Unfortunately belief in astrology is as prevalent in modern US culture as religious belief. Both are more common than any real understanding of the scientific method. So I see where you're coming from, and I assure you that I would never attempt to defend my faith using rational arguments. There just aren't any credible rational arguments to support religious faith.
Here's my problem with evangelical atheism, though: Now that I've admitted that faith has nothing to do with science, why do you still find it so offensive? I'm not trying to convert you, and the majority of religious people aren't trying to convert you. So it's a question of mutual respect. Why can't you leave us to believe whatever we want to?

Nice bit of truncated history Roy. Rove no more began this than you did. Who was it told virtually every reporter to ask Huckabee about his religion why did even reporters who were known to be atheist bring up his religious views at every opportunity?

The Temperance Union which was a religion based Political movement was begun somewhere in the mid 1800's and eventually gave us the only amendment to the constitution that was repealed.

This nation has had a healthy mix of religion and politics almost from its inception.

Talk about the left? When did all this crap about secularists and religion in politics start? How about the advent of Karl Rove and his politics of hate and fear which frightened, polarized and activated the neochristian lemmings of Dobson, Robertson and Falwell?

Before that, religion was a personal matter, one that one did not pry into or try to shove down another's throat (with the exception of Mormon Utah, of course).

I recently attended a ceremony in Southern Mexico celebrating Candelaria, the Feast of the Presentation of Jesus at the Temple. They walked through the neighborhoods carrying baby dolls decked out in new clothes, ate tamales, talked and drank hot chocolate. Mexicans of all political parties and various religions participated including Mormons, evangelicals, Adventists, Catholics and oh, uh, some with different beliefs who neochristians like to demonize as "secularists". No one bickered or fought over religious or political differences. No one pointed fingers at or condemned the others. They just enjoyed an opportunity to get together and share what they did have in common in life and /or Christianity.

If Jesus had a choice to attend and listen to a anti-gay rampage by Dobson, a "take this nation back for Christ" rally by Huckabee, or go to this poor ceremony in Mexico, which do you think He would choose?

Anthony M. Stevens-Arroyo:

Have you petitioned the Vatican for the return of the gold looted from Latin America by the Conquistadors yet? What are you waiting for?

You did see the midnight mass from the Vatican Christmas eve? Notice all those gold chalices, monstrance etc. That belongs to you and your fellow Latinos. If the pope is moral he'll be quick to return it. I'll bet he thinks it's 'gifts to God' and never thought about where it came from or it's rightful owners.

The Vatican and all churches are receivers of ill gotten goods gifted by folks worrying about going to hell for lying, cheating, stealing and killing to get what they have. All those boat loads of gold on the Spanish main eventually ended up in the churches. Don't tell me you're on the other side of it all, a receiver of loot too?

Hell awaits followers of Lucifer. http://www.hoax-buster.org/sellyoursoul if you don't know what the three great faiths are in. Of course there's a few easy dollars to be made with the least amount of sweat leading souls to Lucifer's kingdom. There's still plenty of guilty ones looking to buy a ticket to heaven and they never bother looking at the facts.

Thought you'd like to be reminded.

PS I wouldn't bother asking the Queen of England, (head of the Church of England) for the gold Drake took from the Spanish. Why waste your time.

Viejita del oeste:

You ask...

Could we argue for a secular form of atheism, that is atheists who refrain from evangelizing their disbelief?

I respond...

To the atheist, religion has as much credibility as astrology. If astrology was generally accepted by almost everyone as unquestioned truth, and if much of the behavior, traditions and customs of peoples everywhere were influenced by such 'truths',then the atheist would be the one saying, (with the scientists no doubt) "This is ridiculous, astrology is meaningless, we have to stop deluding ourselves", and so on.

IF the fact is that religion is as silly as astrology, then it makes sense for the atheist to speak out And as far as we know gods WOULD seem to be fiction. Everything points to it. There have been hundreds, maybe thousands of gods invented since the dawn of man, and all eventually discarded.

Atheists believe they are man made. It makes sense. And I believe speaking out against religion,and religious indoctrination,is almost a duty of atheists everywhere.

Thank you sir.

First time in a long time I have seen anyone make the distinction, and never as clearly. I was born in 1942. I grew up primarily on military bases or other government installations. I grew up with the secularism which you define. We all went to a church...a non-demoninational church..it was simply protestant or catholic...no further layering. The question of who was or was not "saved" was not a significant issue. We assumed we were all saved. We didn't have to wear special rings, or bracelets, or pendants, or neon signs. We didn't point to the sky when we got a hit, scored a touchdown, or graduated. We prayed in the privacy of our homes and churches. We did not feel the need to convert anyone to anything. We respected each others feelings and beliefs and did not feel compelled to impose ours. Presidents were elected without having to "confirm" their religious credentials. We looked at the results of their religious credentials. Were they good people. Were they honorable, honest, and just. If they were, we were just fine with whatever their religion might be. It had served them well.
Our world was a secular one as defined in the leading essay by Mr. Stevens-Arroyo . It was not without religion. It was simply without the need for a religious test. it was a sweeter, kinder, more gentle, and infinitly more livable world with regard to our personal beliefs.

The fundamental protestant right has forced a religious test on presidential candidates, and in many areas of our country on most aspects of everyday living. This required test requires that it is not enough to simply believe in a Christian God, or, in the mountain west, in a Mormon God, but that we wear the signs and symbols of that faith on our sleeve. That we proclaim our belief loudly in the public square, and that we carry our temple recommend or 1st Baptist membership card glued to our forhead and look for those who do not have one. And it requires that we scorn, and attempt to convert, all those who are not "us". The bible says that Jesus threw these sanctimonius hypocrites out of the temple square. I wish we had the will to do the same.

The current religious culture in the United States reflects the growth of the religious right in the world of Islam so precisely that it is frightening. We haven't quite gotten around to stoning the apostates, but in more than one community in has been suggested. We are a silly little millimeter away.

For all of you who believe that "born again" means that you are require to protolyze, that you are "special", and that you are the only one who is "right". Here is a newsflash. Based on what is actually written in the new testament, Jesus is secular as we discuss it today. It would wonderful if you were to simply follow his example, instead of believing that the louder you publicize your conversion, the holier you are. It's not so.

Soja John Thaikattil: Thank you for your comments. I find them refreshing and accurate.

As an atheist, (de-converted from Christianity of about 45 years) I appreciate that the debate will not go anywhere on a personal level. It takes curiosity, a sense of a quest for truth, and willingness to be open to new ideas (with a recognition that we are all hard-wirded for certain ideas and beliefs from our early infancy) to come to conclusions about non-emperical beliefs.

But yes, we can agree on the scientific method, Enlightenment principles of freedom of thought, and can work together via politics to ensure the universal or 'secular' values that allow us all to live in peaceful democracies.

But what I think we will see over the next several years (and hopefully longer) is an informed dialogue which asks the question of whether or not certain religious beliefs are good for the world, and if not, if they should be rid of. This will be a difficult point to concede, but zealous religionists can and will continue to define religion to the extent that the moderates of the similar religions allow those behaviors or beliefs to persist. It is out of the hands of non-believers to change minds in the realm of faith.

It will also be helpful to question the intent of our would-be leaders in matters where they claim they are a product of their faith, and that their faith guides and directs them in all their decisions. That puts faith squarely in the public realm, and in the arena of debate and discussion, where there will be fine lines between "respect" and genuine accountability.

And in that matter, I think it should matter to all who have any 'beliefs,' or to those who hold no religious beliefs.

Anti-theists, atheists, agnostics, believers of all shades, shapes and sizes can at all times discuss issues that concern the human condition without conflict and look for common solutions, each one contributing according to their wisdom and knowledge. Believers can remain open to the criticism voiced by Atheists & Co as long as the criticism is respectful, meaningful and constructive. A zillion year debate on the empirical evidence for the absolute nature of God leads nowhere as the current discussions on the forum has proved. The debate which was once reserved to philosophers and theologians has now become the fare of the common man. 'God exists - no He doesn't' debate has gone pop! It gets anti-theists and believers talking respectfully with each other, but without really arriving at anything. It remains a debate for the sake of a debate. It merely provides more fuel to debate the same thing with different words with no end in sight.

Atheists must be judged by their actions, not by their degrees of disbelief and their eloquence at expressing them, just as believers must be judged by their actions not their eloquence at muttering religious formulas or expertise in performing religious rituals.

Viejita del oeste wrote February 10, 2008 7:37 PM :

"The first comment gives me an idea. Could we argue for a secular form of atheism, that is atheists who refrain from evangelizing their disbelief?

I enjoy the kind of conversation where we each compare notes and explain our particular beliefs and practices. I get a little prickly when anyone tries to tell me what I believe or why, or when they berate me for accepting dogmas that they find unacceptable."

----------------

It takes two to tango. There is no law (at least not that I know of anywhere in the world) that demands a believer engage in a debate with an anti-theist. According to the anti-theists God doesn't exist and nobody else has the right to believe in what they do not. The anti-theists are entitled to their opinion about the existence (or lack of existence) of God but have no right to prevent anyone from believing in God and practicing any religion as long as it does not impinge on the human rights of anyone.

The answer to the contempt with which some anti-theists speak about believers is for all believers to become strong believers of science, and to accept it as a means of understanding the physical universe; to embrace science as work in progress towards that end and be fully aware of the limitations of the scientific process itself and its limitation in explaining everything. It is also vital for believers to know that reason and faith in God are not contradictory. Faith in God is beyond human reasoning but it does not exclude human reason. There are many aspects of life that is beyond normal rational and intellectual reasoning and yet it expresses truth which cannot be expressed as empirical scientific formula.

Atheists like to take credit for having invented secularism. And all Baptists are all Bible thumping farmers from the south and all Muslims are terrorists and all Jews are...etc, etc. Thank you for the broad sweeping generalization.

I know of no atheists who take credit for having invented secularism, however atheists and agnostics are among the most vocal citizens standing up for the continued separation of church and state.

We non-christians have a stake in ensuring a separation of church and state. I certainly don't want to be beheaded, shot or impaled with a stake by those good god fearing people who want to change the Constitution to make this a christian nation.

Outstanding being arguing essentially the same point since this question first appeared.

Christianity is about doing charity because one wishes to not about doing charity because the government leaves you no other choice.

The first comment gives me an idea. Could we argue for a secular form of atheism, that is atheists who refrain from evangelizing their disbelief?

I enjoy the kind of conversation where we each compare notes and explain our particular beliefs and practices. I get a little prickly when anyone tries to tell me what I believe or why, or when they berate me for accepting dogmas that they find unacceptable.

Dear Professor Stevens-Arroyo

The essay is brilliant, simply brilliant! I can find no more words to add to it. I can only echo the same thing in my own way - a secular government grants all its citizen the freedom to practice any religion or none, respecting the human rights of all. A secular government protects the rights of all if any religious practise should impinge on the human rights of anyone, including the adherents of the said religion (Read: punishment by death for apostocasy in Islam). That holds good for atheists too: they must accept the fact that the vast majority of human beings feel the need for religion and deserve the right to practice it in peace.

Soja John Thaikattil
Sydney, Australia