"The origin of the universe is a question for physics, not philosophy. There are dozens of discoveries in physics (especially things like as quantum physics) that confound philosophy, and that make no "sense" to the classically trained philosopher, but are nevertheless true."

This is a classic case of the "not invented here" syndrome. There are dozens of discoveries in physics that have confounded prior PHYSICS and make no "sense" to the classicially trained PHYSISIST of the day, but are nevertheless true.

This guy is blowing of a whole academic discipline because he assumes it died with Aristotle (or perhaps Aquinas) - which is bizarre, because most of his core arguments are based on the work of such PHILOSOPHERS as Locke and Hobbes.

Modern philosophers are conversant with the findings of the modern sciences - both physical and social - and seek to actively use them to improve our understanding of the world and ourselves. It's both arrogant and ignorant to claim otherwise.

The thing is, it's impossible NOT have a personal philosophy. You may not be self-aware enough to recognize your assumptions, but they are there.

As an aside, Jed suggests that "[t]he equations and evidence may eventually prove that matter sprang into existence on its own without cause." Just what sort of evidence might that be?

It's certainly possible that we can find a point at which the universe existed, but before which we can find no evidence of its existance (in fact, it appears that we already have). We can imagine learning a great deal about its structure at its first moment of existance. One can imagine finding something in that structure that would suggest the nature of a prior cause.

But what physical evidence could you possibly find for the lack of a cause? Some sort of quantum background potential out of which universes spring into existance? Possible - but wouldn't that constitute a cause (at least in a probabilistic sense)?

These are exactly the kind of questions thoughtful scientists and philosophers are discussing - but Jed's awol from the discussion, because of his great distaste for "philosophy" and his unwillingness to think hard about what the findings of modern cosmology really mean.

Anonymous wrote:

"There's nothing to suggest that it is eternal, and while you have an allergic reaction to philosophy, it's not good philosophy to assume that everything sprang into existence out of nothing."

The origin of the universe is a question for physics, not philosophy. There are dozens of discoveries in physics (especially things like as quantum physics) that confound philosophy, and that make no "sense" to the classically trained philosopher, but are nevertheless true. Our "assumptions" and our "good philosophy" have never been a useful guide to what is true. People tried to use good philosophy to understand nature for thousands of years, but in the end they knew little more than cavemen did. Only experiments, observations and scientific theory can teach us ANYTHING about the universe. Time after time, they have shown that our assumptions were wrong.

The equations and evidence may eventually prove that matter sprang into existence on its own without cause, just as radioactive elements disintegrate on their own without any physical cause. Many cosmologists expect that will be proved. If it is proved, it will not matter that this seems counter-intuitive, untenable or impossible, or that it conflicts with philosophy. When facts conflict with philosophy, philosophy is always wrong.

There is infinitely more in the universe than dreamed of in your philosophy. The human imagination alone, unaided by experiment, is incapable of learning anything about nature.

Jed, are you nuts? In response to the argument that "Something has to be uncreated."

you respond: "No, it doesn’t. If God does not need to be created, then neither does matter. And if everything does need a first cause, then so does God."

You're either not reading, or not thinking. The claim you seem to object to wasn't that everything needs a first cause, but that there must have been SOMETHING that DIDN'T have a cause - which is exactly what you then proceeded to say!

The appeal to authority (Mills) is beside the point, because we're directly addressing Mills' objection. All modern thinkers agree that there must be something that is uncaused. We also agree that it COULD be the physical universe.

But everything we know about the physical universe through science suggests that it did, in fact, have a beginning. There's nothing to suggest that it is eternal, and while you have an allergic reaction to philosophy, it's not good philosophy to assume that everything sprang into existance out of nothing. At a minimum, that's as big a streatch of the imagination as to suppose that someone or something (be it God, Allah, or little green men from the larger multiverse) that is responsible.

You keep assuming that philosophy is frozen in some prior point in time, and that as a result you can reach back and grab some hoary old bon mot and dismiss the entire enterprise. This is foolish. Philosophers are quite well aware of what the scientists are up to, and use those results to refine and correct their understanding of the world (serious theologians are as well, for that matter). Why would you assume otherwise? Is it only scientists who are so provincial as to be completely unaware of what's going on in other disciplines? That's pure intellectual hubris (and one reason so many scientists look foolish when they try to talk about philosophy or religion).

One more clarification is in order. The question was:

"What if we can't discover it - what then?"

My answer:

"Then we shall remain forever ignorant. . . ."

I took that question to mean "what happens if we cannot discover it?" Perhaps it more intended to mean: "What if we cannot, even in principle, discover what caused the universe to materialize?"

It is much too early to judge whether this can or cannot be discovered. Science is still in its infancy. For all anyone can say, it might take another million years of progress before the question is settled. However, in the past century, we answered many questions that were thought to be "beyond the power of science to address." It would be foolish to imagine that we now know what the eventual boundaries of knowledge will be, or what is knowable and what isn't. I agree with Jefferson, that progress will continue "not infinitely . . . but indefinitely, and to a term which no one can fix or foresee."

I wrote:

"Scientists have never observed microscopic evolution of large species, or the initial formation of DNA and the first cells in primordial circumstances . . ."

Foiled again by voice input. I hope it is clear that was supposed to be "MACROSCOPIC evolution of large species."

Note that "cause" is used in two senses here: 1. Trigger, or give rise to, as in push over the first domino; and 2. Plan, arrange, build, as in set up those dominoes in the first place. Subatomic particles undergo reactions spontaneously, without a cause in the first sense. There is no reason to think anything triggered the creation of the universe.

Russell was hardly the first to repudiate the 'First Cause' argument. In my opinion there are many other valid arguments against the existence of God, including many that are less philosophic and more technical. See Dawkins, chapter 4.

Indefatigable Anonymous wrote:

"'In the realm of morality it has not yet been improved upon, in my opinion.'

This is actually a very interesting statement. Given your presuppositions, what possible moral standard can you use to judge the worth of Christian philosophy as a moral code relative to, say, Social Darwinism or National Socialism? That you like it?"

I apply the same methods you do. I apply intuitive moral standards. They are instinctual; a product of evolution. Many of our moral standards are shared by other intelligent primates. Chimpanzees, for example, share similar instincts and behaviors for morality, political rivalry, sex, care of infants, and organized group homicide (war). You suffer from the illusion that these moral codes were given to you by a higher power, whereas I know they are inborn and instinctual, and also species-bound and culture-bound.

Obviously I have high regard for the Christian philosophy because I have lived in a culture shaped by this philosophy. Perhaps Christianity has inherent logical value compared to other philosophies, but it is difficult for me to judge because like anyone else I am influenced by my upbringing, and a prisoner of my own worldview. If I had grown up in Nazi Germany I would probably find much of value in National Socialism. That would especially be true if they had won the war. Suppose the Anglo-American cross-channel invasion had failed, Russia had fallen, and the Nazis still ran Europe. By now everyone but the European Jews would be reconciled to it, just as we were reconciled to the Soviet Union during the Cold War. (The European Jews would all be dead, of course.)

"The assertion was that in any time or place where the physical universe DOES NOT EXIST, any science that is solely and completely dependent on observing the physical universe is totally useless - because there's nothing for it to observe."

You assume more about the limits of physics than many modern physicists do. In any case, I know little about cosmology, so I cannot address these issues.

"Let's spell it out in simple terms. Anthropology is a good way to learn more about humanity - but if we all were to die, and there were no more people, it would be of greatly limited use."

You mean if humanity and every trace of us disappeared, it would be of no use. Anthropologists study people and cultures that vanished thousands of years ago. Scientists often study things that are no longer there, or never were there but might have been.

"To make it as clear as possible - if what a science studies ain't there, then it cain't study it."

This is oversimplified. Science often addresses hypothetical and unproven assertions, and events which cannot be re-created precisely, but only in approximation. As I said, anthropologists study vanished civilizations. Scientists have never observed microscopic evolution of large species, or the initial formation of DNA and the first cells in primordial circumstances, yet they know much about how these events happened. They can recreate similar events on a smaller scale. Perhaps, when enough is known about the Big Bang, the reasons it occurred will be worked out even though we cannot directly observe another Big Bang, or cause one.

"Think of small pox - natural epidemic, or did the evil white men give infected blankets to the indians? Same natural laws - which has a purpose, and which doesn't?"

There is no evidence of purpose and no conceivable mechanism by which a deity could impose his will or purpose on events such as disease, earthquakes, or evolution for that matter. (Evolution seems to be a favorite target of many religious people.) The laws of physics preclude it. A person can cause a small pox epidemic, but a deity with no hands who cannot manipulate blankets cannot cause one.

"Bottom line - please prove your assertion "That which is not [physically] apparent somehow, to some instrument, at some level, does not exist"
Many philosophers would agree with you - but they could tell me why they believe it. Others disagree - and they can tell me why as well."

Then I suggest you read them. They do a better job explaining these things than I do, and if they cannot convince you, neither can I.

"'Because otherwise you multiple entities. That is what is prohibited by Occam's razor; it does not call for 'simplicity' as some people think. You have to ask what created the creator, which is an infinite regress.'

. . . completely misunderstands the philosophical argument. Something has to be uncreated."

No, it doesn’t. If God does not need to be created, then neither does matter. And if everything does need a first cause, then so does God. As Bertrand Russell put it:

"About two years later, I became convinced that there is no life after death, but I still believed in God, because the 'First Cause' argument appeared to be irrefutable. At the age of eighteen, however, shortly before I went to Cambridge, I read Mill's Autobiography, where I found a sentence to the effect that his father taught him the question 'Who made me?' cannot be answered, since it immediately suggests the further question 'Who made God?' This led me to abandon the 'First Cause' argument, and to become an atheist."

I am sure you are familiar with this argument. No doubt you disagree, but please do not pretend ignorance. I am convinced by this, and you are not, and let us leave the discussion there.

"But now we know, thanks to science, that it almost certainly has not always existed. So, what's the cause for the universe?"

Perhaps there is no cause. Who knows? There is no logical reason to think that uncaused things must be eternal. Even if this does "seem" logical or plausible to you, you will find that physics are full of discoveries which do not seem logical but are definitely true.

Your ideas about these subjects are very old fashioned. As Bertrand Russell put it, 'causality is not what it used to be.' ". . . [A]nd this is the most disturbing of all since it seems to show that the law of causality, in which science has hitherto implicitly believed, cannot be applied to the doings of individual electrons." (And other subatomic particles.)

"It could be an earlier or broader physical universe of which we are not aware (bang/bust cycle; multiple universes; universes giving birth to daughter universes, etc.). Not much evidence for that, but it's logically possible."

Until there evidence for this, there is no point to speculating about it.

"Engage here! What do you think - did the universe have a beginning?"

Apparently it did. The evidence points to that.

"Are you simply assuming that there will be a PHYSICAL cause that we will discover?"

First, not all events are caused, as Russell pointed out. Anyway, assuming the creation of the universe did have a cause, I am certainly not assuming we will discover it. I have no idea whether we will or not. If we do, it will be in the realm of physics, not metaphysics. What I do assume is that every other physical event is without moral content or purpose, so the beginning of the universe was also without moral purpose.

"What if we can't discover it - what then?"

Then we shall remain forever ignorant. We are ignorant of many things, and even if our species lasts a billion years I am sure that there will still be countless unanswered questions left when we finally go extinct.

"Do you just assume that the universe sprang into being for no cause whatsoever?"

I do not assume that, but why not? Perhaps it had no cause (or trigger, in any case). We do not know enough to rule this out. If subatomic events such as the disintegration of an atom can occur without a cause, perhaps macroscopic events can as well.

In any case, I assume nothing. I do not know how the universe sprang into being. I do not pretend to know, and I do not assign imaginary causes without evidence and then label them "God." It is better to admit ignorance than to make assertions without evidence.

"In the realm of morality it has not yet been improved upon, in my opinion."

This is actually a very interesting statement. Given your presuppositions, what possible moral standard can you use to judge the worth of Christian philosophy as a moral code relative to, say, Social Darwinism or National Socialism? That you like it?

"There are only two places where anything has ever been shown to exist: in our minds, and outside of them."

This is completely bogus. Please, please, please, Jed - take at least an introductory philosophy class and an introductory logic class at a school with a serious philosophy department.

You have completely begged the question here by ASSUMING that nothing can be shown to exist by any other means than physical observation, and then then saying "ah ha - presto bingo, we've used physical observation, and it shows that nothing exists outside the physical universe!"

Get serious here. Many philosophers claim that valid logic can demonstrate, depending on the philosopher, the reality or probable reality of things that you're blowing off.

In response to "One we reach a point where the physical universe no longer exists (either before, beyond, or after it), the physical sciences must stand silent." you replied "How do you know? We have not reached the end of science yet. In fact, we have hardly begun."

This completely missed the point. The assertion was that in any time or place where the physical universe DOES NOT EXIST, any science that is solely and completely dependent on observing the physical universe is totally useless - because there's nothing for it to observe. That in no way says anything about the limits of science as a way of observing the universe - just that it is in fact limited to observing ONLY the PHYSICAL universe (and cannot speak to ANYTHING else).

Let's spell it out in simple terms. Anthropology is a good way to learn more about humanity - but if we all were to die, and there were no more people, it would be of greatly limited use. Botany is great for studying plants. If you are in a place with no plants, botanists have nothing to study. Zoology is great for studying animals, but if you don't have any animals (even human ones), then zoology isn't going to help you learn much. Geology is great for studying the planet earth - and, potentially, other planets as well. But if all the planets disappeared, it wouldn't be of much use. Astronomy is a wonderful tool for studying the celestial bodies, intersteller dust and gasses, cosmic background radiation, etc. But if all the stars, planets, dust, gasses, radiation, comets, black holes, and miscellaneous chunks of stuff out there were to disappear, then astronomers would have nothing to do except re-hash old astronomy books.

To make it as clear as possible - if what a science studies ain't there, then it cain't study it.

We may not have "hardly begun" with the physical sciences. What they've begun to show, however, is that the physical universe had a definite beginning, and that it is not infinite in extent. Serious scholars believe these findings are of potentially great philosophical importance.

You're just spouting hot air until you engage their arguments and prove that their methods do not and cannot work. Actually dig in and do the philosophical heavy lifting of proving that all valid knowledge of the nature of reality must ultimately depend on physical observation - until you do, you're just spouting off. When you claim that you want "objective proof," that's not what you're really asking for. You're asking for "physical proof" - and rejecting out of hand any reasoning from the observation that the universe isn't eternal, or that it exists at all, or anything else.

Face it - you're picking and choosing which observations you're willing to examine, and rejecting without examination any line of reasoning that comes to a conclusion that clashes with your materialistic world view.

When you responded to:

"How, for instance, can you prove through science that the universe has no purpose?"

with:

"Because it is governed by physical laws and they have no purpose. We know how they work. Not completely of course; we shall never learn all of the laws of physics. But we know enough to say they are not affected by thoughts and they have no signs of being biased in favor of doing good instead of evil. When you fire a bullet on the battlefield it does not stray or change its path to hit an evil person instead of a nice person. Disease strikes at a cellular level with no regard for how nice, important, faithful, or loving you are."

. . .your line of reasoning was just plain silly. Your hypothetical bullet is governed entirely by physical laws. So is a forest fire. So is an smallpox epidemic. So is a pocket watch, for that matter. A complete examination of the flight path of a bullet cannot prove or disprove its purpose. Forest fires are even more fun. Two firest are governed by EXACTLY the same physical laws. One is accidental - the other is arson. One has a purpose, while the other does not - but you're argument would allegedly "prove" that both had no purpose. Think of small pox - natural epidemic, or did the evil white men give infected blankets to the indians? Same natural laws - which has a purpose, and which doesn't?

So by all means, examine the natural laws of the universe. The fact that it is governed by such laws speaks not at all to the question of purpose. Let's face it - for all you know the universe could be part of an elaborate practical joke played by an intelligence we don't understand. Or perhaps it's intended to somehow compost and recycle that intelligence's waste? I don't think so - but you can't prove otherwise by saying "hey, it's governed by natural laws."

Bottom line - please prove your assertion "That which is not [physically] apparent somehow, to some instrument, at some level, does not exist"

Many philosophers would agree with you - but they could tell me why they believe it. Others disagree - and they can tell me why as well.

You simply keep repeating it. Could it be because that's what you were culturally conditioned to believe? I hope not, because then it's frightenly close to this "faith" that so disturbs you.

As an aside, the statement:

"Because otherwise you multiple entities. That is what is prohibited by Occam's razor; it does not call for 'simplicity' as some people think. You have to ask what created the creator, which is an infinite regress."

. . . completely misunderstands the philosophical argument. Something has to be uncreated. Or, in other terms, something must ultimately be uncaused. Unless you're willing to accept a sort of spontaneous creation out of nothing (i.e., the universe wasn't, then it just leapt into existance for no reason whatsoever), then what is uncreated/uncaused must also be eternal.

One simple answer to this question is to say that the physical universe has always existed - it's eternal, uncreated, and uncaused.

But now we know, thanks to science, that it almost certainly has not always existed. So, what's the cause for the universe?

It could be an earlier or broader physical universe of which we are not aware (bang/bust cycle; multiple universes; universes giving birth to daughter universes, etc.). Not much evidence for that, but it's logically possible.

The other approach is that the cause is something non-physical that is itself eternal, uncreated and uncaused. That in no way creates an infinite regress - in fact, the nub of the argument is that at some point the regress must come to an end, and that end must necessarily be something eternal and itself uncreated.

Engage here! What do you think - did the universe have a beginning? Are you simply assuming that there will be a PHYSICAL cause that we will discover? What if we can't discover it - what then? Do you just assume that the universe sprang into being for no cause whatsoever?

Thanks to voice input I wrote:

"If it is not in principle answerable by science and it is not answerable at all."

Meant: ". . . answerable by science THEN it is not answerable at all."

Please note that my comments regarding what fish think of people are humorous. Fish do not appear to be sentient, pace "The Little Mermaid." On the other hand, we hunt and kill intelligent primates, who definitely are sentient and who do understand that humans live in groups and act deliberately. They probably would be delighted to kill us off if they could, or see us commit mass suicide. You can't blame them. What is moral to one society or species is immoral to another. There are no absolute moral standards; right and wrong only have meaning from a particular species' point of view, in a given situation, in a specific place and time.

Anonymous wrote:

"All of the major religions believe in a non-material diety or aspect of reality - one that exists outside of our imaginations."

There are only two places where anything has ever been shown to exist: in our minds, and outside of them. Everything outside is physical and ruled by the laws of physics. So far we have not discovered any other hiding places. Speculating that such places may exist is not the same as discovering them.

"They may, of course, all be wrong . . ."

Yes, they are. That is the lesson of the last 400 years of science.

". . . but if there is some aspect of reality that is non-material and outside of us, it can't be subject to physical examination by the physical sciences."

If you cannot detect something by any means, even hypothetically, that is the same as not existing. If it can affect the physical world, there has to be a way to detect it.

"'Of course I believe in non-material things! . . . Poetry, love, valor, jealousy criminality -- a world of things. . . .'

Then why do you reject out-of-hand the concept of a non-physical Dao, or spirit, or God, or what have you? It's because of this next presupposition of yours."

The Dao or Spirit is a moral system that exists in our minds, like any other philosophical system. A philosophy can motivate people to do wonderful things, or terrible harm, so it is important. But it is a nonphysical idea. When we go extinct, or when the Dao philosophy is forgotten in the distant future, all trace of it will vanish. It does not linger in physical space in any sense.

"This is a presupposition. You're assuming that if we can't touch or sense something, or that it doesn't have a consistent reproducable _physical_ effect, then it doesn't have a "real" existance independent of us - it's not part of "reality" other than in our minds."

Right, that’s what I assume.

"This is, whether or not you recognize it, a philosophical conclusion about the nature of the universe (you've already gone farther than you thought)."

Of course it is a philosophical conclusion! Of course I recognize that. It is the scientific method, and it is supported by the outstanding success of science over the last 400 years. Science is the most successful and powerful philosophy ever devised. It has rendered all previous philosophies obsolete. It has done more to empower human beings (for both good and evil) than the previous 100,000 years of philosophies and technologies combined. It has given us the power to destroy the whole human race. What more proof do you want that it works? (And that it has no moral content.)

"Many religious people -- including you, I gather -- believe that an intelligent being created the physical universe and that entity either takes an active role in day to day events, or somehow imbues events with cosmic justice or meaning."

Yep, we do."

You believe it, but you cannot prove it by experiment, therefore your belief has no basis. All statements about the physical universe must be testable by experiment in principle, albeit in many cases not in practice. Any object or force which affects physical particles can be detected in principle, and it must conform to the laws of physics.

"And many non-religous people -- including you, I gather -- believe that the universe is uncreated, even though it now appears to have had a definite beginning."

Apparently so. The physical evidence of the Big Bang points to that.

"Why do you think Occam's razor cuts on the side of "'t just happened?'"

Because otherwise you multiple entities. That is what is prohibited by Occam's razor; it does not call for 'simplicity' as some people think. You have to ask what created the creator, which is an infinite regress.

"But we don't see an eternal universe. Why did it begin? Why is there a universe at all? . . . but that's precisely where cosmology starts looking like philosophy and theology."

Theology answers no questions at all. It is a fancy way of saying "we don’t know" meaning "we give up and shrug our shoulders." That's not an answer. If these questions are ever answered, the answer will be in the form of an equation describing a set of physical laws that make it inevitable that the universe should spring into existence.

"I am dead serious about one question here - given that the universe is not eternal, why did it begin? Do you believe that this question is, even in principle, answerable by science?"

If it is not in principle answerable by science and it is not answerable at all. All questions regarding the physical universe appear to be answerable by science, and not one has ever been answered correctly by religion. All of the answers provided by religion in previous centuries have turned out to be wrong. (I mean the answers pertaining to physics, not morality!!!)

"One we reach a point where the physical universe no longer exists (either before, beyond, or after it), the physical sciences must stand silent."

How do you know? We have not reached the end of science yet. In fact, we have hardly begun.

"You may argue that the question is unanswerable . . ."

It is presently unknown – that’s all we can say. Since many other phenomena which people once thought unknowable can now be explained. There is no reason to think this question will not be answered in the future.

"'Indeterminacy is built into the structure of matter, as I expect you know. Even God cannot overrule Schrodinger.'

Those are pretty bold statements."

Yes, science has made bold discoveries, and it has answered questions that people even a hundred years ago considered unanswerable. Lots of books written before 1952 said that life is a miracle and reproduction will never be understood. Then we discovered DNA and it turns out life is explicable after all. In another few thousand years we will probably learn just about every important detail about how the human body works.

"How, for instance, can you prove through science that the universe has no purpose?"

Because it is governed by physical laws and they have no purpose. We know how they work. Not completely of course; we shall never learn all of the laws of physics. But we know enough to say they are not affected by thoughts and they have no signs of being biased in favor of doing good instead of evil. When you fire a bullet on the battlefield it does not stray or change its path to hit an evil person instead of a nice person. Disease strikes at a cellular level with no regard for how nice, important, faithful, or loving you are.

"Purpose is non-physical . . ."

Exactly! Purpose therefore does not exist in physical things. It exists in our minds alone. It is an idea that can mean nothing to an outside observer, such as an extraterrestrial observer or one of the animals we eat. When you look at us from the point of view of the fish that we catch and eat, we are evil incarnate. Everything we consider kindness, such as helping children or putting food on the table, they must see as making their lives miserable. They would prefer we kill ourselves off and go extinct. From their point of view, that's perfectly justified, even though from our point of view genocide and suicide are the ultimate evil.

"You can argue, based on the patterns you see in it, that it has no apparent purpose - but that's a far cry from proving that it has no purpose."

That which is not apparent somehow, to some instrument, at some level, does not exist. If we later discover a bias in the universe in favor of purpose then perhaps we will have discovered the existence of God. At present we have not discovered a trace of that. You can speculate all you like that there might be a purpose, which we might someday discover, but until we actually do discover it, you are wrong and your speculation is an empty waste of time.

"It's even more far fetched to claim that you can prove that 'God, if he existed, could not affect the path of a single electron for a single nanosecond.' It's one thing to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient creator does not exist - it's another to claim that if an omnipotent, omniscient creator did exist, He couldn't do anything!"

If he does anything to the physical world, sooner or later we will spot his actions. Until we do measure his actions we have no evidence he exists, and no reason to believe he exists, and I never believe in things without evidence. I have the opposite of faith: I demand objective proof of every assertion.

"Regardless of your definition of prayer, please note that the vast majority of religious texts and believers claim that prayer DOES affect the outcome of events in the real world. . . ."

We do. But not in the sense of a magic incantation or some sort of spell . . . Prayer is a request to an intelligent being, who sees further than we do, and has purposes that we are many times not privy to.

It is impossible for you to distinguish between these two situations:

1. God exists but has decided not to do what you asked, and never, ever shows a bias in favor or against your prayers.

2. God does not exist.

Since the outcome of prayer never has any effect on the course of physical events, diseases and so on, it is simpler to assume #2.

"Setting aside the quibbles, and there are many, about the studies on both sides that you're referring to . . ."

No there are not. The ones showing effects from prayer are bogus.

"Your heartfelt rejection of religion seems to be more based in your distaste for the picture of God you've picked up from the religious people you've met, than it is in any philosophical objection to the possibility."

It is not the religious people I have met. Most of them are fine people. It is the religious books that I have read that gave me a bad taste. They are full of logical errors and unproven, circular assertions. The worst thing is, they demand "faith," which they define as believing in things unseen that cannot be proved. Faith is the enemy of science and sanity. It is one of the worst ideas people have ever came up with, right up there with race purity, man’s domination of the earth, and men being superior to women. It is a sick, stupid, backward, dreadful idea. You should never believe anything without objective evidence.

That discovery that objective evidence is paramount loosely defines the scientific method, along with the need for experiments. It is the most liberating, valuable, and powerful idea ever discovered. It has brought more benefit to mankind than all the religions ever practiced, and all the prayers ever offered. Of course it may yet destroy the human race in a nuclear war or with global warming, so in the long run, perhaps it will be more of a curse that a blessing. But so far it has been good for us. Darwin's science has no moral content whatever. You cannot draw a single conclusion about right and wrong or how to treat people based on the fact that we evolved from single-celled organisms. But it does offer some advantages religion never did: it is the TRUTH, and we can PROVE it, and build upon it, use it to cure disease and to create profound self-knowledge. In the past we were ignorant and wrong and now we know how we were created, and by what forces, and to what purpose (none whatever -- the workings of blind nature). Charles Darwin was the "Emancipator of the Human Mind."

By the way, I am well aware that science and enlightenment philosophy are rooted in Christan philosophy. This philosophy and the notion that God exists did a lot of good to mankind, and not much harm. In the realm of physics, it gave birth to its successor, the scientific method. In the realm of morality it has not yet been improved upon, in my opinion. Although it is superseded in physics, and we now know that the universe has no creator or moral content whatever, the idea was pretty good while it lasted. Perhaps the scientific method will someday be rendered obsolete by some philosophy that works even better. Perhaps we will even discover that the universe does have a moral bias, good is rewarded, and prayers answered. I think the chances of that are exceedingly remote, but in any case, until that happens and someone proves it rigorously by experiment I will not believe it.

"Wait a second here. I mean nothing can exist in the palpable, touchable sense."

But no one has ever suggested that Dao, Allah, or Jehovah "exist in the palpable, touchable sense" - in fact, Daoists, Muslims, Christians and Jews make exactly the opposite claim. All of the major religions believe in a non-material diety or aspect of reality - one that exists ourside of our imaginations. They may, of course, all be wrong - but if there is some aspect of reality that is non-material and outside of us, it can't be subject to physical examination by the physical sciences.

"Of course I believe in non-material things! The qualification seems obvious -- sorry I did not explain it previously. I hope this explanation is clear. Lots of things exist outside the physical world, in our minds. Poetry, love, valor, jealousy criminality -- a world of things. When the human race goes extinct I suppose they will all cease to exist in any meaningful sense, but they are here now. I guess you could say the laws of mathematics and Shakespeare's plays will survive until the last syllable of recorded time, but with no living creature left to enjoy them it is hard to know what "surviving" means."

Then why do you reject out-of-hand the concept of a non-physical Dao, or spirit, or God, or what have you? It's because of this next presupposition of yours.

"The reality in our minds only. Thoughts alone. Not in the real world that you touch, or sense, or where your actions have consequences. Religion and philosophy tell us only how to think and how to make moral judgments. I agree 100% with that statement, but that is as far as I go. "

This is a presupposition. You're assuming that if we can't touch or sense something, or that it doesn't have a consistent reproducable _physical_ effect, then it doesn't have a "real" existance independent of us - it's not part of "reality" other than in our minds. This is, whether or not you recognize it, a philosophical conclusion about the nature of the universe (you've already gone farther than you thought).

"Many religious people -- including you, I gather -- believe that an intelligent being created the physical universe and that entity either takes an active role in day to day events, or somehow imbues events with cosmic justice or meaning."

Yep, we do. And many non-religous people -- including you, I gather -- believe that the universe is uncreated, even though it now appears to have had a definite beginning.

Why do you think Occam's razor cuts on the side of "it just happened?" If science were suggesting that the universe has always existed, then we might have a different discussion. But we don't see an eternal universe. Why did it begin? Why is there a universe at all? There is scientific speculation about cycles of big bangs and big crunches, and multiple universes, and all sorts of stuff - but that's precisely where cosmology starts looking like philosphy and theology.

I am dead serious about one question here - given that the universe is not eternal, why did it begin? Do you believe that this question is, even in principle, answerable by science? I don't. The methods of science limit it to the current nature and history of the physical universe. One we reach a point where the physical universe no longer exists (either before, beyond, or after it), the physical sciences must stand silent.

You may argue that the question is unanswerable - I don't think you can successfully maintain that it is not meaningful.

"That is the domain of science, and science proves that atoms are ruled by the cold, hard laws of physics alone, without a shred or morality, purpose or meaning. If God exists he is powerless to affect one atom or put one thought (electrochemical state) into your mind. Supernatural events never occur. God, if he existed, could not affect the path of a single electron for a single nanosecond. He cannot even tell exactly where a given particle is or where it will be; the question is meaningless. Indeterminacy is built into the structure of matter, as I expect you know. Even God cannot overrule Schrodinger."

Those are pretty bold statements. How, for instance, can you prove through science that the universe has no purpose? Purpose is non-physical, and not subject to the methods of science. You can argue, based on the patterns you see in it, that it has no apparant purpose - but that's a far cry from proving that it has no purpose. It's even more far fetched to claim that you can prove that "God, if he existed, could not affect the path of a single electron for a single nanosecond." It's one thing to prove that an omnipotent, omniscient creator does not exist - it's another to claim that if an omnipotent, omniscient creator did exist, He couldn't do anything!

"Regardless of your definition of prayer, please note that the vast majority of religious texts and believers claim that prayer DOES affect the outcome of events in the real world. That can be tested experimentally, and it has been tested, and found wrong."

We do. But not in the sense of a magic incantation or some sort of spell, where specific words said in the right way with enough intensity will always produce a predictable result. Prayer is a request to an intelligent being, who sees further than we do, and has purposes that we are many times not privy to. Setting aside the quibbles, and there are many, about the studies on both sides that you're referring to, no church teaches a form of prayer that goes like this "God, please heal . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please heal . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please give me a . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please give me another . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please make my wife . . . BOOM, it's done! God, please give me lots more . . . BOOM, it's done!"

That's a picture of Aladin's genie, not the ruler of the universe. Destroying that paper tiger may be fun, but it doesn't really accomplish much. As somone said earlier, if every heartfelt prayer were answered with a "yes," no one would ever die. If God did create the universe, life and death were built into the design. Do you really think we can ask him to redesign it to be more with our liking, and expect Him to say "o.k., that sounds good, let's re-work it!"

"I cannot understand why you crave approval or guidance from some higher power, or an absolute standard of morality, or even why you think any of that would be a good idea."

Well, here's the problem - the existance of God isn't a matter of whether I think it's a good idea, a divinity either exists, or does not. Religion can be true, or false, or it's not worth believing in.

Your heartfelt rejection of religion seems to be more based in your distaste for the picture of God you've picked up from the religious people you've met, than it is in any philosophical objection to the possibility.

Anonymous says: "I've been watching your jousting with Demos, before he got tired of you and left"

That's funny - I thought you were Demos.

Whatever happened to Demos, anyway?

Anonymous misunderstood, alas, and wrote:

"'I do not worship anything, least of all science. Science is a tool like Microsoft Windows, only less reliable, with no help-line. It has no moral content.'

Interesting comment. You won't admit to even the bare the possibility of any other source of knowledge about the nature of existence, and claim that nothing can exist if it can't be studied by science."

Wait a second here. I mean nothing can exist in the palpable, touchable sense. All particles of matter are governed by physical laws.

But there are any number of non-material things such as philosophy, mathematics, morality, love, hate, patriotism, literature, etc. that have nothing to do with the physical world. Science can teach us little or nothing about them. Science can never establish guilt or innocence, or cruelty and kindness.

Biology, for example, can show how and why our sense of morality arose from evolutionary processes. It demonstrates that other primates and intelligent animals share much of our morality. But it is no help if you are trying to decide moral conundrums, such as whether war is ever justified; or whether you love someone; or whether gay people should be allowed to marry. Biology proves that morality derives from our primate nature, which is a product of evolution, but that tells you nothing about what is moral and what isn't. For that, you have to be inside a primate mind, and in touch with our instincts, experiences and culture.

This is analogous to saying that biology proves that sexual desire and love are caused by the instinct to procreate. I presume no one would dispute that?!? That tells you nothing about whether you are sincerely in love and should marry or not.

"When pressed, you consistently say 'in the physical universe' - but then you won't even discuss what the qualification means, or your reasons for putting it in. Fess up - you do not believe that anything other than the physical universe exists."

Of course I believe in non-material things! The qualification seems obvious -- sorry I did not explain it previously. I hope this explanation is clear. Lots of things exist outside the physical world, in our minds. Poetry, love, valor, jealousy criminality -- a world of things. When the human race goes extinct I suppose they will all cease to exist in any meaningful sense, but they are here now. I guess you could say the laws of mathematics and Shakespeare's plays will survive until the last syllable of recorded time, but with no living creature left to enjoy them it is hard to know what "surviving" means.

"We weren't discussing prayer - we were discussing whether your assumption of bare materialism was justified, and why you're so unwilling to explore the foundations of it."

I am quite familiar with the foundations of scientific thought! And the limitations.

"Besides, your sample is pretty skewed. Intercessory prayer is a part of most religions - but it's not at all the only kind of prayer."

No doubt there are other kinds. I did not mean that to be a comprehensive list. I mentioned a few other kinds, such as the therapeutic variety favored by Unitarians. None of them have any effect on physical reality, and none of them communicate with a deity because there is no such being (as far as I can tell).

Regardless of your definition of prayer, please note that the vast majority of religious texts and believers claim that prayer DOES affect the outcome of events in the real world. That can be tested experimentally, and it has been tested, and found wrong.

"How would you know? For all you can tell, I might have been religious years ago . . ."

Because by now you would have said so."

Nope, I wouldn't. That would prejudice the discussion. As it happens, I have drifted from agnostic to a somewhat more atheistic point of view, but for the most part I agree with the Buddhists that we should pretend to know the unknowable.

Elsewhere you wrote:

"Yes, most Eastern 'religions' are more akin to Western philosophy than to the Abrahamic religions. So what? They are serious efforts to understand the nature of reality, and represent world views very different from the one you espouse."

The reality in our minds only. Thoughts alone. Not in the real world that you touch, or sense, or where your actions have consequences. Religion and philosophy tell us only how to think and how to make moral judgments. I agree 100% with that statement, but that is as far as I go. As for the rest --

People in ancient times (and many today) believed that religion is also a means of controlling events in the real world with prayers and amulets and such. I gather you agree with me that's wrong. They thought that religious texts described actual historical events such as Adam and Eve, which is completely wrong, and the worldwide Flood. There was a big Middle Eastern flood but it was not worldwide. I gather you don't believe in Adam and Eve. Good for you. Pressing on . . .

Many religious people -- including you, I gather -- believe that an intelligent being created the physical universe and that entity either takes an active role in day to day events, or somehow imbues events with cosmic justice or meaning. As you expressed it, religion is about the "nature of God, His relationship to people, and how He expects us to live." There can be no such nature, and there can be no cosmic entity with expectations about us. You are only multiplying entities in any case, without any evidence.

"Creating the universe" or affecting matter in any way means manipulating atoms and molecules of physical matter. That is the domain of science, and science proves that atoms are ruled by the cold, hard laws of physics alone, without a shred or morality, purpose or meaning. If God exists he is powerless to affect one atom or put one thought (electrochemical state) into your mind. Supernatural events never occur. God, if he existed, could not affect the path of a single electron for a single nanosecond. He cannot even tell exactly where a given particle is or where it will be; the question is meaningless. Indeterminacy is built into the structure of matter, as I expect you know. Even God cannot overrule Schrodinger.

Many religious people (including you, I think) believe that religious laws were handed down by a "higher power" -- that is -- a non-human intelligent entity. God, Gods, the Emperor Hirohito, or what-have-you. There is not a shred of evidence for that and the notion is preposterous. Extraterrestrial visitors would be slightly more plausible and there is no evidence for them either.

The whole idea is grotesque. Why do you even want to hand over responsibility for human morality to some nonhuman intelligence? We are responsible for what we think, and for the morality we create, and for what we are. We can't blame it on God, or give him credit for it either. Morality is entirely our creation. We create our own purposes and meaning, and when our species goes extinct, all that we have known, and loved and created, and all the good and bad that we have done will vanish with us. My Buddhist friends they will tell you that is a good thing. There is much to be said for annihilation.

I cannot understand why you crave approval or guidance from some higher power, or an absolute standard of morality, or even why you think any of that would be a good idea. You are capable of dealing with your own life and deciding for yourself what is right and what is wrong. You must do that: there is nothing else in the Universe that cares about you or understands what morality is from a human point of view. All species are unique, and they can barely grasp one-another's point of view. We can barely communicate even with our closest primate relatives, not to mention dogs, bees or whales. What can a God or a whale or some other sentient creature tell you about love or bravery or whether it is okay to kill your daughter (as ordered by your Old Testament God)?!? These are human constructs -- they exist in our minds alone, as a product of our nature and our biology, the outcome of our evolution. Our choices, our minds and will are an infinitely greater and more wonderful thing than your cramped notion of religion with fixed, absolute morality, do's and don't set down by someone else, and passing off responsibility and decision to an invisible cosmic entity. We are, as Hamlet put it:

. . . noble in reason! . . .infinite in
faculties! in form and moving how express and admirable! in action how like an angel! in apprehension how like a god! the beauty of the world, the paragon of animals!

What more do you want? Why invent a God when nature and evolution have endowed us with so much? Why insist on some higher power? We are high enough.

Well, I guess I'll just have to watch out when 6:00 rolls around, won't I?

This last message would make a lot more sense if you hadn't consistently been blowning off philosophy as well as religion.

Yes, most Eastern "religions" are more akin to Western philosophy than to the Abrahamic religions. So what? They are serious efforts to understand the nature of reality, and represent world views very different from the one you espouse.

Noting that dao, atman and dharma aren't worshiped doesn't really help your position much either. The concepts are meaningful, and relevant to how Daoists and Buddhists understand the nature of reality. They aren't, by any stretch of the imagination, crude superstitions like the alchemy and astrology you bring up as red herrings.

Let's throw all the amulets, charms, potions, statues and the like out.

Is there anything inherently illogical in the concepts of dao, atman and dharma? Can you disprove them - scientifically or otherwise? (I guess it would have to be "otherwise" - you've already said that science doesn't speak to those issues.)

There is no dust, there is no mirror. What does that say about the nature of reality? Is it wrong? How do you know?

One last note - your analysis of religious faith is off the mark again. All of the various Christian churches that still maintain a traditional understanding of the Christian faith would, in fact, be miffed if they thought you were "faking it" - that's called hypocracy.

Let me clarify something for the benefit of people not familiar with Taoism (Daoism). I wrote:

"'If that doesn't make sense to you, please explain how you would disprove the Daoist view of reality using modern science?'

Science has nothing to do with such things. You might as well try to disprove general relativity by pointing to the rules of baseball."

I meant the non-supernatural aspects of taoism, which are a large chunk of the whole. It is mainly a philosophy rather than a religion in the Western sense of the word, although they do have some ritual. Quoting Wikipedia, which is surprisingly on the mark:

"Tao is rarely an object of worship, being treated more like the Indian concepts of atman and dharma."

Naturally I hold that the religious rituals associated with Taoism have no validity. The alchemy and astrology associated with it are also invalid, which I suppose even Anonymous would agree with. The philosophy is well worth studying.

The same goes for some of the less superstitious forms of Buddhism, which I think many Westerners would hardly recognize as religion. Their philosophy is similar in many ways to the New England Transcendentalism, which is a form of Unitarianism. These are rare sects that are perfectly happy to leave God out of the picture. At most churches you have to at least pretend you believe in God and the supernatural, whereas at these places I think they would be miffed if they felt you were faking it. The Buddhists would be miffed and amused.

It is worth noting that the only declared atheist in the U.S. Congress, Stark (D, Ca -- of course) is a Unitarian. I heartily approve!

After extensive exposure to their thought I would be hard to put to decide whether the Zen Buddhists believe in anything, or nothing, but I recommend it. I would like to see Mr. Anonymous get whacked over the shoulder at 6:00 a.m. for thinking too much and for declaring that God exists -- or doesn't exist, as the case may be. It is a good antidote to over-zealous Western-style analysis, and a cure for people who think they know things that are unknowable.

"I do not worship anything, least of all science. Science is a tool like Microsoft Windows, only less reliable, with no help-line. It has no moral content."

Interesting comment. You won't admit to even the bare the possibility of any other source of knowledge about the nature of existance, and claim that nothing can exist if it can't be studied by science. When pressed, you consistently say "in the physical universe" - but then you won't even discuss what the qualification means, or your reasons for putting it in. Fess up - you do not believe that anything other than the physical universe exists. You also have no interest in understanding how anyone else could come to another conclusion - because any other conclusion is inconceivable to you.

"Well, most people who pray tell me they do it because it affects the course of events, by helping them recover from sickness, for example."

We weren't discussing prayer - we were discussing whether your assumption of bare materialism was justified, and why you're so unwilling to explore the foundations of it.

Besides, your sample is pretty skewed. Intercessory prayer is a part of most religions - but it's not at all the only kind of prayer.

"I do, actually. I just don’t agree with them. I think you should stop accusing me of being unfamiliar with this or that. That's fruitless, and obviously false."

No need to accuse - you've demonstrated it over and over. Your faux pas of describing the Bible as intended to provide a primative scientific explanation for the workings of the physical universe was a joke, as was your misdating it by over a millenium.

What's more, you've clearly stated that your only interest is in the psychology and motivations of religious individuals - HOW and WHY they come to believe, not WHAT they believe.

Now, what exactly did you think the purpose of the Song of Songs was again? I've seen it described as early Israelite wedding litergy, as an extended allegory of God's love for His people, and even as an early Hebrew sex manual (that was the most enjoyable commentary to read) - but never as a "creation myth."

"I am quite familiar with them. You seem a little confused. Do you think the Japanese amulets are only decoration and no one actually thinks they prevent automobile accidents?"

Yep, and some scientists were lucky shirts when they play soccer. Petty superstition runs in all social classes and settings. If you're going to reduce all Japanese thought to amulets, you're blind. (Besides, do you really think they're an essential part of Japanese thought or philosophy? If so, then tenure fights and funny graduation gowns are essential to Western academic thought.)

"You can wonder about such questions until the Cosmic Crunch, but unless you perform experiments and observations you will never arrive at an answer. Speculation about physical phenomena without experimentation is sterile."

Again, you fail to engage. We've specifically said we're not talking about physical phenomena - the question is whether or not really includes anything anything OTHER than physical phenomena.

You know, you remind me of the business man who understood everything in terms of money. He believed in sex, because he could buy it. He didn't believe in love, because he couldn't buy it.

"I believe the physical limits of the universe are well-established."

No kidding - and guess what, it is limited, both in time and in extent. You're like a man in a locked room who is not just incurious about what might be on the other side of the walls, he won't even discuss the walls because he can't imagine anything outside the confines he's become accustomed to.

"Philosophers have been asking questions like that for thousands of years. They are no closer to an answer now than they ever were. Such questions can only be addressed with the tools of science, or not at all."

What, are you going to claim now that not just religion, but PHILOSOPHY hasn't changed in "4,000 years?" Come on - that's a bit much. Look, there ARE philosophical arguments for the position you're taking. There are strong arguments on the other side as well. Unfortunately, you seem completely unaware that the discussion is being carried on, much less of the issues involved. To take a simple example, before the development of modern cosmology, exponents of the side you're taking commonly argued that the physical universe was eternal, obviating the need to ask where it came from. Modern cosmology has forced a significant reevaluation - on both sides(the dust hasn't settled from this one yet). Serious scientists are interested in the issue - why aren't you?

"Experiencing another culture forces you to question your core beliefs. It is unavoidable."

Really? What do you consider a core belief? Did you question your assumption that reality is limited to the physical universe? Did you question whether you were correct in dismissing a Daoist world view(or a Buddhist world view, etc. . . .)? Did you simply ask yourself if there was anything to satori other than a neurological phenomenon - and if so, how it might be explained?

"Aren't we? Are you sure?"

Absolutely sure! Open mindedness is an intellectual issue, and very different from being adventurous in more mundane ways. Both are good - but the kind of narrow-mindedness you've attributed to believers and mocked has nothing to do with adventurousness. Very, very fundamentalist believers travel the globe eating and living EXACTLY the way the people they're trying to reach eat and live. Christianity takes different external shapes and forms in every country it's found in, adapting those externals to the culture. Everything you claim to have done is done every day, all over the world, by the very believers you mock as being close-minded. They take the squeemishness and unsettledness you claim as your badge of openmindedness, and eat the sushi too!

"Not for me it isn’t! No sushi, no thank you. I do not care for fish, raw or cooked. And whale meat is indigestible."

You should try it. I'd suggest the rolls - they're easier for us Westerners to face. If you're bothered by raw fish, try the artificial crab meat. It's pre-cooked. We make sushi rolls at home with smoked salmon and artificial crab. Easy (but messy) and fun. You can also get beef sushi - it's a bit chewy, but tastes a lot like a rare steak. (I must admit that I don't do shrimp sushi - the raw shrimp sitting on top looks too much like a big ol' bug.)

"Science has nothing to do with such things. You might as well try to disprove general relativity by pointing to the rules of baseball."

On this much we believe - some questions science can't answer. If you do reject the Daoist world view, on what basis do you do so? It can't be scientific. I suspect it's a philisophical one (probably your assumption that nothing exists other than the physical universe). Whether you do it here or not, please go through the exercise of disproving Daoism - it will force you to work through the basis of your beliefs and, if done honestly, will expose a number of presuppositions.

"How would you know? For all you can tell, I might have been religious years ago and now I have changed. You seem to define change exclusively as "going toward religion" What about people who drift away from it? For that matter, have you changed? Are you more religious or less religious than you used to be? If so, are you sure you are going in the right direction?"

Because by now you would have said so. Are people who drift away from religion open-minded? Yes, in many cases. (Others do it out of shear inertia.) Am I more or less religious? I'm differently religious. Some of by beliefs have changed, I understand my religion very differently in some respects, and have a very different view of how it relates to modern secular thought. I have some open questions about the interaction of science, philosophy and faith as well. That's part of growing and maturing intellectually - and it can be a fascinating journey, whether you come full circle, or end up in a very different place. If nothing else, I can say this - I have a much clearer view of exactly what I do believe, and why.

"I do not know why you are so certain that change only works in one direction."

I'm not - change works in all directions. I'm still interested in the latest that science has to say, and the implications for my convictions. Those convictions have changed and evolved over time. I'm just not going to go "oh well, Hitchens says he's explained it all away and disproven God . . . he's a scientist so he must be right . . . too bad, so sad, but God's dead now . . . " That's foolish - particularly when there are other, equally intelligent thinkers who are convinced that science and faith can be reconciled - and that some of the newest findings in physics may help point the way more clearly than ever in the past.

"Also, you seem to assume that people who experience alien culture alway adapt those cultures and pick their side -- for example, when you supposed I have some animus toward Western religion. People who experience alien cultures learn to appreciate their own culture more, and grow closer to their own traditions, rather than embracing the alien culture. That too is a form of spiritual growth and it can be beneficial."

Well, I assumed an animus against Western philosphy and religion based on what you'd said about them. I didn't realize at the time that you were an equal opportunity critic, so to speak. I guess you just hadn't had time to clarify your animus for Eastern thought as well.

What's curious is that you seem to have examined Eastern thought purely as a sociological specimin. That's sad. Yes, studying other systems of thought can strengthen your own - but we generally gain new insights too.

But to do that, you have to be open to honestly evaluating the content of the other culture's world view and belief system (and the weaknesses of your own), and not just the cultural and sociological trappings. Otherwise, you pick up meaningless scraps like a totalitarian dictator who holds periodic rigged "elections," but completely rejects the idea of democracy.

Anonymous wrote:

"'There is no conflict here! We agree nearly 100%.

No, we don't - not even a little bit. Science I accept - but not people who worship science."

I do not worship anything, least of all science. Science is a tool like Microsoft Windows, only less reliable, with no help-line. It has no moral content.

"'It is not fair to say that I have not looked. For hundreds of years, I and other people have looked vigorously for signs of supernatural phenomena, such as the efficacy of prayer.'

It is absolutely fair. You have a warped understanding of philosophical and religious thought that equates them both to either bad primitive science, or the type of crude magic where a prayer or incantation is used instead of a machine to produce a physical effect."

Well, most people who pray tell me they do it because it affects the course of events, by helping them recover from sickness, for example. They sell amulets in Japanese temples for various specific purposes such as passing examinations and traffic safety. Other people, with a more philosophical bent (such as Unitarians), say prayer makes them feel better internally but it can have no effect on the outside world.

Still others say they pray and God decides whether to answer or not. Since prayer demonstrably never have any effect on physical events, I conclude that if God exists he has evidently decided to ignore prayers and decide without taking them into account, so I suppose there is no point in offering them. Also I suppose there is no way to distinguish between God existing but never responding in any measurable way, and God not existing at all. The latter seems simpler to me, and I always go with the simpler explanation, per Occam's razor.

"'I mean anthropology. I mean that I have studied the uses and practice of religion in many cultures, comparative religion, and I know that people actually believe in claims.'

And it's clear that you have almost no familiarity with the actual religious beliefs or texts themselves."

I do, actually. I just don’t agree with them. I think you should stop accusing me of being unfamiliar with this or that. That's fruitless, and obviously false. As I said, I am sure you ARE familiar with various concepts, such as the idea that morality can be divorced from religion, but you disagree. Please grant that I too have knowledge, but I disagree with your conclusions.

"'People do in fact "believe in claims" - that's what 'religious belief' means. But you're completely clueless about what those claims actually are."

I am quite familiar with them. You seem a little confused. Do you think the Japanese amulets are only decoration and no one actually thinks they prevent automobile accidents?

"A meaningful moral order does not necessarily require the God of the Abrahamic religions - but it does some aspect of reality that provides value over and above the blind and morally-neutral workings out of physical laws."

Physical laws, biology and the like have nothing to do with morality. You might as well try to base your morality on a train schedule or Microsoft Windows.

"'If you don't like God, Allah or Jehovah, try Daoism, or Buddhism, or any other Eastern or Western school of philosophy that posits a moral framework for existence.'

The conclusions these sects reach are in some cases diametrically opposite. Some favor peace, others war. How can you support them all, or say that they are all valid? You would not say: "If you don't think protecting children is moral, go right ahead and cut their throats -- as long as you can find a religion that supports your decision, such as selected portions of the Old Testament."

I will stick to the philosophies which do not posit any higher power, but which arrive at roughly the same answers as Christianity. There are such things, you know. You may not agree with them, but surely you have heard of them.

"This does display a lack of imagination. It's not that hard to ask 'why is there something rather than nothing' or 'there seems to have been a definite beginning point to the universe and physical limits to the universe - what might there be before or outside it?'"

I believe the physical limits of the universe are well-established.

As for the other questions: Yes, anyone can ask such questions. And I can call spirits from the vasty deep. ("Why so can I, or so can any man, but will they come when you do call for them?" - Henry IV) Yes, you can ask, but can you answer?

You can wonder about such questions until the Cosmic Crunch, but unless you perform experiments and observations you will never arrive at an answer. Speculation about physical phenomena without experimentation is sterile.

"Or as a philosopher might ask it, 'if it's possible for the universe to not exist, and it both appears to have had a definite beginning and we can't prove that it has always existed, do we assume that its existence is contingent but uncaused? How can that be?"

Philosophers have been asking questions like that for thousands of years. They are no closer to an answer now than they ever were. Such questions can only be addressed with the tools of science, or not at all.

". . . and the church is a corrupt business cartel that's ripping you off, you dummy . . ."

Well a lot of churches are corrupt. Judging strictly by cash flow, the U.S. Catholic Church seems mainly to be in the business of raping children. The Shinto churches in the 1930s were mainly in the business of mass-murder.

". . . but hey, I could analyze your psycho-social relationships for you and explain to you why you're so gullible - interested in that, maybe?"

Not gullible; traditional.

"Reading about and experiencing cultures is one thing - actually questioning your core beliefs is another."

Experiencing another culture forces you to question your core beliefs. It is unavoidable.

"It's easy to do and eat weird things . . ."

Not for me it isn’t! No sushi, no thank you. I do not care for fish, raw or cooked. And whale meat is indigestible.

"Harder yet to take the time to study Zen - not study ABOUT Zen and its adherents, but actually experience it . . ."

Actually, I have done that. I used to go every week. Very nice people, and not bad if you don’t mind getting up at 5 a.m. and meditating in the snow. Some of their sects resemble Unitarians, in that they are open to atheism and much of their philosophy has no supernatural element and no claim about the deity. Their philosophy is one of the things that attracted me to Japan.

"Or explore Daoism. Or anything else that challenges your presuppositions."

I have explored these things, but I do not agree with them. At least, not with their supernatural claims.

"Am I a Daoist, or a Zen Buddhist? No."

Agreed! I know ‘em when I see ‘em, and you ain’t it.

"But since you seem to have a particular animus against Western religions . . ."

This is cognitive dissonance on your part. I disbelieve all religions equally, Eastern and Western, ancient and modern, without animus or prejudice. I presume that you believe in only one religion and disbelieve and all the others, so we are almost alike.

"If that doesn't make sense to you, please explain how you would disprove the Daoist view of reality using modern science?"

Science has nothing to do with such things. You might as well try to disprove general relativity by pointing to the rules of baseball.

"But we're not talking about squeemishness or a resistance to being unsettled by what other people do and say."

Aren't we? Are you sure? That makes me doubt that you have spent much time living overseas. Frankly, I think a dose of squeemishness and being unsettled would do you good, although I don't recommend sushi.

"Open-mindedness is a willingness to entertain changing how YOU think and what YOU believe about things that are important to YOU. That's something you've not even begun to demonstrate."

How would you know? For all you can tell, I might have been religious years ago and now I have changed. You seem to define change exclusively as "going toward religion" What about people who drift away from it? For that matter, have you changed? Are you more religious or less religious than you used to be? If so, are you sure you are going in the right direction?

I do not know why you are so certain that change only works in one direction.

Also, you seem to assume that people who experience alien culture alway adapt those cultures and pick their side -- for example, when you supposed I have some animus toward Western religion. People who experience alien cultures learn to appreciate their own culture more, and grow closer to their own traditions, rather than embracing the alien culture. That too is a form of spiritual growth and it can be beneficial.

"There is no conflict here! We agree nearly 100%."

No, we don't - not even a little bit. Science I accept - but not people who worship science.

"It is not fair to say that I have not looked. For hundreds of years, I and other people have looked vigorously for signs of supernatural phenomena, such as the efficacy of prayer."

It is absolutely fair. You have a warped understanding of philosophical and religious thought that equates them both to either bad primative science, or the type of crude magic where a prayer or incantation is used instead of a machine to produce a physical effect. No one in this discussion has said "oh, I know that Islam is true because Allah always answers prayers to heal the sick if you just believe hard enough and chant loudly enough in the right mosque."

"I mean anthropology. I mean that I have studied the uses and practice of religion in many cultures, comparative religion, and I know that people actually believe in claims."

And it's clear that you have almost no familiarity with the actual religious beliefs or texts themselves. People do in fact "believe in claims" - that's what "religious belief" means. But you're completely clueless about what those claims actually are.

You define morality as "a set of ideas and ideals that appeal to the moral sensibilities of ordinary sane people." Interesting. But that's inconsistent with the New Testament understanding of morality, which you find so admirable. It's also a definition that's indistinguishable from one of "good taste" or "useful social rules."

A meaningful moral order does not necessarily require the God of the Abrahamic religions - but it does some aspect of reality that provides value over and above the blind and morally-neutral workings out of physical laws. If you don't like God, Allah or Jehovah, try Daoism, or Buddhism, or any other Eastern or Western school of philosophy that posits a moral framework for existance.

"I cannot imagine how there can be any phenomenon in the physical world that is not amenable to study by scientific methods, and detectable by some instrument, at least in principle. Perhaps this is because I lack imagination, but that is how I am."

This does display a lack of imagination. It's not that hard to ask "why is there something rather than nothing" or "there seems to have been a definite beginning point to the universe and physical limits to the universe - what might there be before or outside it?" Or as a philosopher might ask it, "if it's possible for the universe to not exist, and it both appears to have had a definite beginning and we can't prove that it has always existed, do we assume that its existance is contingent but uncaused? How can that be?"

Honestly, we may never be able to answer some of these questions - but brilliant people in all sorts of different disciplines (cosmology, philosophy, theology . . .) are working on them, and doing fascinating work. Do you somehow know that they're all kidding themselves, and that even if they don't solve the big questions, they won't learn anything of value? Or are you simply not interested?

"It isn’t that I "won’t talk about it." I cannot talk about it. I have nothing to say."

You could consider listening to people who do have something to say, rather than endlessly repeating "no, no, no . . . nothing you could possibly say about anything I don't believe could ever be of value . . . and besides, you're a dupe who're just kidding yourself . . . and the church is a corrupt business cartel that's ripping you off, you dummy . . . but hey, I could analyze your psycho-social relationships for you and explain to you why you're so gullible - interested in that, maybe?"

"I have translated books from Japanese, and written one in Japanese. What better proof is there than that that I am open minded and willing to look at new ideas?"

That only proves that you're interested in the Japanese language and culture - it's a bit like a radical Muslim "proving" that he's open minded by learning English and eating at McDonalds (or perhaps even traveling someplace where women wear bikinis instead of chadors). Reading about and experiencing cultures is one thing - actually questioning your core beliefs is another. It's easy to do and eat weird things - much harder to say "I might be wrong in parts of my world view."

Harder yet to take the time to study Zen - not study ABOUT Zen and its adherents, but actually experience it - with the idea in mind that you might truly learn something about the nature of reality from it. Who knows - you might even reach satori. Or explore Daoism. Or anything else that challenges your presuppositions.

Understand also that it is completely misguided to describe a thoughtful Zen or Daoist philosophy as superstition (though both religions/philosophies have superstitious adherents). They do not reject any of the methods or findings of modern science, and their advocates see no conflict with science. But they do believe that there are other aspects of reality that are important to understand and explore. It's also a misnomer to describe them as "supernatural" - they believe those aspects of reality are part of the natural order of the universe.

Am I a Daoist, or a Zen Buddhist? No. But since you seem to have a particular animus against Western religions, and at least some interest in Eastern thought, they're good examples of something that you could usefully challenge your thinking with.

If that doesn't make sense to you, please explain how you would disprove the Daoist view of reality using modern science?

"With all due respect, I know how to take these things in stride, but I expect they would knock you to a fair-thee-well."

Could well be - I do like my comforts. But we're not talking about squeemishness or a resistance to being unsettled by what other people do and say. Open-mindedness is a willingness to entertain changing how YOU think and what YOU believe about things that are important to YOU. That's something you've not even begun to demonstrate.

Anonymous wrote:

"'The Bible as a whole is sometimes called "a creation myth" in anthropology jargon, but that does not mean it only about creation. All ancient religious texts deal with both creation and morality, love, and so on.'

You're trying to backfill here and cover your butt. Your original assertion was that the Bible was "intended to explain the physical workings of the universe" in opposition to Demos' assertion that it was not primarily intended to do that. You can only redeem your argument by demonstrating that an issue that takes up less than 1% of the the Hebrew scriptures represents its purpose or intent."

There is no conflict here! We agree nearly 100%. I think I made it clear that I agree with you that most of the Bible is about morality and the things you cite, and only a small portion is "intended to explain the physical workings of the universe." The Bible is both a moral lesson and an attempt to explain physical workings. I am saying that the latter part is invalid.

This is a separate issue, but I also pointed out that I disagree with some of the moral lessons in the Bible, such as the notion that you should slaughter innocent tribes of people.

"Try to cover your butt all you want - this foolishnes won't stretch far enough to do it.
'Now you're saying ‘I would never say Hamlet is stupid or invalid just because I do not believe in ghosts’ - but that's just what you've done with the entirety of world religion.'"

Not the entirety! Not the moral lessons, literature and so on. I only reject the supernatural parts of religion: God, prayer, miracles and so on. Of course I realize that believers feel this is the essence of religion, but I am convinced it is entirely mistaken. Perhaps some people in 1600 felt that the essence of Hamlet was a ghost story -- the ghost was the most meaningful part. From the modern perspective the ghost is mere fantasy to help the plot along, and the human interactions and morality are the crux of the story.

"'Oh, I am shallow regarding religion!' But you claimed it was your "bailiwick'".

I mean anthropology. I mean that I have studied the uses and practice of religion in many cultures, comparative religion, and I know that people actually believe in claims. These are not symbolic: ancient Christians and Jews believed in the Adam and Eve myth; modern Japanese sincerely believed that the Emperor was a God.

"You've mischaracterized it's purpose as providing a 'scientific' explanation of the physical workings of the universe, when by your own admission that - at absolute most - represents less than 1% of the total . . ."

We agree! I am only concerned with that 1%! I am critiquing that part. I agree with you that is only a small part, and I have no quarrel with the rest. But surely you agree that 1% is there. You are not suggesting that there are no supernatural claims in the Bible? It is not entirely symbolic. People did believe in Adam and Eve, the Flood, miracles, prayer, or that God wants us to do one thing but not another. Even you believe the latter. Those are supernatural beliefs, by definition. I think they are physically impossible and without foundation.

"2) "The morality of the New Testament is 100% worthwhile and it has nothing to do with myths or superstition, any more than King Lear or Hamlet does.

You can't have it both ways! "

Of course I can! You may disagree, but surely you know that many people feel that morality can be divorced from religion, and we can have it "both ways."

"Which is it?"

Both.

"Are we the product of a natural universe that has no moral content or meaning?"

Yes, we are. Exactly right. Evolution has absolutely no moral content or meaning, and we are the product of that process. There is not a cell in your body or a thought in your head which is not the product of natural selection.

"If so, how can the morality of the New Testament be characterized as 'worthwhile?'"

Well, there are two interpretations for this: 1. It is worthwhile in its own right, without reference to the physical universe. See existential or Zen Buddhist philosophy. 2. We feel that it is worthwhile, and valid, because we and other intelligent species are evolved to feel that way. In a healthy individual, morality promotes survival of the individual, the group, and the genes.

Actually, I think these are two sides to the same coin.

"Useful in controlling people, perhaps - but given your assumptions it can't have real moral content."

I believe you are saying that real moral content requires supernatural approval (scripture, revelation, a sign from God, or something along those lines). Obviously I disagree. As I said, I am sure you are aware that many philosophers feel that moral content can be divorced from religion. Evidently you disagree, but please do not pretend you have never heard of this concept.

"If it does, where did the moral content come from? If people are simply deciding on the rules they like and find useful . . ."

That is the only place moral content can come from. People have to decide, because God does not exist. Some people imagine that God decided for them, and told them what to do, but this is an illusion. Actually they decided for themselves and then pointed the finger at God. For example, when the ancient Israelites and the modern Japanese wanted to massacre innocent people, they first convinced themselves that God had commanded them to do this.

You may think that your morality comes from a higher source, but it does not. The Bible was written by ordinary mortal people, and it was entirely a product of their imagination. They thought that God was talking to them. I am not suggesting this was insane or unbalanced or anything like that. Pre-modern people have many similar illusions. For example many people even today believe in witchcraft. When they get sick, they think someone has put a hex on them. Of course they are wrong; this is physically impossible, and we know that sickness is caused by bacteria, environment and other natural causes. These people are mistaken but they are perfectly intelligent and well adjusted.

"Come on now, are the New Testament teachings really a "morality?" What does "morality" mean in a purely natural universe where everything is the result of natural processes that have no moral content or meaning?"

It means a set of ideas and ideals that appeal to the moral sensibilities of ordinary sane people. That is a bit like asking what does mathematics mean in a purely natural universe. When a sane person agrees that 2 + 2 = 4, and that assertion fits his mental picture of how things work, that makes it correct. When sane people everywhere agree that helpless children should be protected by adults, that makes it a universal standard of morality. You will find there are very few such standards. What is considered a sin in one culture is often a virtue in another. For example, in the Old Testament it was considered morally right for Jephthah to sacrifice his daughter, and the Incans considered it morally right to take their children up mountains and cut their throats to sacrifice to the gods.

"All you could say, over and over again, is "nope, if the physical sciences can't study it, it don't exist, I won't talk about it . . ."

Well, only with regard to the physical universe, not morality, literature, mathematics and so on. It isn’t that I "won’t talk about it." I cannot talk about it. I have nothing to say. I cannot imagine how there can be any phenomenon in the physical world that is not amenable to study by scientific methods, and detectable by some instrument, at least in principle. Perhaps this is because I lack imagination, but that is how I am.

It is not fair to say that I have not looked. For hundreds of years, I and other people have looked vigorously for signs of supernatural phenomena, such as the efficacy of prayer. We have not found a single trace. Not one experiment, not one objective test. As far as anyone can tell every particle in the universe is governed by physical laws and these laws have no moral content. You might wish it were otherwise, but wishes have no effect on reality. As for me, I am perfectly happy with the universe as it is. (Or as it appears to be, in any case.) I have no desire to see a built-in moral, intelligent agent, or some arbiter of morality higher than human imagination.

"And you're the open-minded ones who're willing to critically examine their beliefs and consider new ways of thinking about things?

I'd love to see your support for that."

I have spent most of my life examining Japanese and Chinese cultures and beliefs, which are often quite alien to my background. I have translated books from Japanese, and written one in Japanese. What better proof is there than that that I am open minded and willing to look at new ideas? I have read about and experienced many beliefs, customs, religions and ways of life that I expect you would find disconcerting, alien and even horrible in a few cases. With all due respect, I know how to take these things in stride, but I expect they would knock you to a fair-thee-well.

P.S. I don't really feel much need to mock you either - you're doing a good enough job of it yourselves.

"The Bible as a whole is sometimes called "a creation myth" in anthropology jargon, but that does not mean it only about creation. All ancient religious texts deal with both creation and morality, love, and so on."

You're trying to backfill here and cover your butt. Your original assertion was that the Bible was "intended to explain the physical workings of the universe" in opposition to Demos' assertion that it was not primarily intended to do that. You can only redeem your argument by demonstrating that an issue that takes up less than 1% of the the Hebrew scriptures represents its purpose or intent.

At least you've admitted that you're spouting anthro-babble.

Try to cover your butt all you want - this foolishnes won't stretch far enough to do it. Now you're saying "I would never say Hamlet is stupid or invalid just because I do not believe in ghosts" - but that's just what you've done with the entirity of world religion. You're backpeddling so fast you're turning red in the face. Please try not to trip.

"Oh, I am shallow regarding religion!" But you claimed it was your "bailiwick" - how is that? If you only dabble shallowly in your specialty, I'd love to see how badly you screw up with things you don't claim any special expertise in.

You've misdated the Bible by over a 1,000 years. You've mischaracterized it's purpose as providing a "scientific" explanation of the physical workings of the universe, when by your own admission that - at absolute most - represents less than 1% of the total (and, at the same time, foolishly extended that mis-characterization to include all "ancient religion.")

Beyond that, you're so unthoughtful about your the sources and implications of your own beliefs as to contridict yourself in ways that would be an embarassment to a sophomore philosophy student.

1) "Humans and all other forms of life and all objects are the product of natural causes, which have no moral content or meaning. At least, that's how I see it. "

2) "The morality of the New Testament is 100% worthwhile and it has nothing to do with myths or superstition, any more than King Lear or Hamlet does."

You can't have it both ways! Which is it? Are we the product of a natural universe that has no moral content or meaning? If so, how can the morality of the New Testament be characterized as "worthwhile?" Useful in controlling people, perhaps - but given your assumptions it can't have real moral content. If it does, where did the moral content come from? If people are simply deciding on the rules they like and find useful, based on practical considerations arising from your natural causes, then we're talking just about by-laws, not moral principles! Come on now, are the New Testament teachings really a "morality?" What does "morality" mean in a purely natural universe where everything is the result of natural processes that have no moral content or meaning?

Please, you should at least keep your story consistent.

You seem to want to duel over who's the most narrow minded. I've been watching your jousting with Demos, before he got tired of you and left. You picked someone who accepted the scientific method that's so important to you, accepted the conclusions of modern science regarding the workings of the physical universe, and didn't mock you for being non-believers. He thought there were limits to what we could learn from the physical sciences, and that philosphy and religion had something important to add about the purpose and nature of reality. He tried to engage you in a discussion of the philosophical underpinnings for your completely materialistic world view, and the philosophical reasons different kinds of believers have for thinking there may be more to existance than that.

All you could say, over and over again, is "nope, if the physical sciences can't study it, it don't exist, I won't talk about it, in fact, I won't even think about it, don't know what you're talking about, don't want to hear it, no-how, no-way, you close-minded superstitious proseletizing right-wing liberty-stealing Republican we-gotta-have-a-Christian-theocracy-now dope you . . . "

And you're the open-minded ones who're willing to critically examine their beliefs and consider new ways of thinking about things?

I'd love to see your support for that.

Demos: “some people are too invested in their world view to recognize or examine the presuppositions they're making, and have lost the intellectual curiosity to step outside their box and ask new questions or think new thoughts.”

This seems like a wonderful example of projection. It makes me wonder if you are so invested in the existence of an invisible supernatural being that you need to imbue people who think rationally with your own narrow outlook.

I must admit it is more sophisticated than the usual “It all comes down to faith.”

By the way, in the previous message I compared the 1930 Japanese militaristic Emperor worship to the Old Testament. The Japanese religion at that time was a death cult. It advocated subjugating and colonizing other nations, even if it meant millions of people suffered and died.

Of course I feel this was evil, deplorable, and unforgivable.

Some readers here may feel that it is unfair to compare this to the Old Testament God. I agree! Let me make it clear that despite the shortcomings of the Japanese religion, it was incomparably more civilized, reasonable, and just than the Old Testament God. The Japanese only wanted to colonize other countries and rule them. In the Old Testament, God ordered the Isrealites to commit genocide: to "utterly destroy" tribe after tribe, Hittites, Amorites, Cannanites and on, and on. That meant slaughter every man, woman and child and every animal, and leave no stone on top of another. The Chinese and Korean victims of the Japanese invasions were much better off.

It makes you wonder why anyone thinks the Old Testament God Yahweh is a source of moral guidance or something we should obey or emulate. The Anonymous contributer here said: "The core concerns of the Hebrew scriptures are the nature of God, His relationship to people, and how He expects us to live." That hits the nail on the head. His nature is depraved, and what He expected His people to do was to "utterly destroy" innocent people. He incited countless other atrocities. A modern civilized person who pays attention to what Yahweh said and did will be horrified. You cannot write this off or excuse it as some kind of symbolic story or analogy. Assuming this is actual history (which seems likely to me) real people were put to the sword.

Of course there was actually no such thing as Yahweh. The Israelite leaders invented him and made up stories (or heard voices) to incite and justify genocide, exactly the way the Japanese leaders and Emperor did in the 1930s. I assume the Israelites believed their own crazy mythology. The Emperor Hirohito believed himself to be a God, and his henchmen sincerely believed they had a divine right -- and duty -- to slaughter Chinese, Koreans, Americans, British or anyone else who got in their way.

Naturally there is a lot of moral, good advice in the Old Testament too. For that matter, many of the 1930s Shinto beliefs were praiseworthy. It wasn't exclusively a death cult, and the older forms of Shinto have much charm and wisdom. No religion is all bad or all good. Religion is, after all, invented by humans. It is a product of human nature, and there is good and bad in everyone.

I do not mean to suggest that the ancient Israelites or the modern Japanese are inherently depraved or inhuman. Ancient religions and customs were, by modern standards, unspeakably cruel. Unfortunately, in the 20th century the Japanese and Germans were still living in the Dark Ages from a moral point of view. Their behavior would have been normal 1000 years earlier.

Anonymous wrote:

". . . The Hebrew Bible is a creation myth and ancient people believed such myths implicitly."

If this is your bailiwick, then you're remarkably incompetent. There's a short discussion of creation at the beginning of the first book of the Hebrew scriptures, and that's about it. Less than 1% in total.'"

Right. That 1% is the part that is wrong. For example, the first two people did not spring out nothing, speak, wear clothing or live in the Garden of Eden. Ancient people sincerely believed that they did, but they were wrong. For that matter, most Japanese people in the 1930s sincerely believed that the Emperor was a God, but they were wrong, too.

"Have you read the Song of Songs? Please try describing it as "a creation myth" with a straight face."

That's the morality and poetry part. It wise, valid and valuable as if it were written yesterday. So are the ancient Japanese texts, and the Greek myths.

The Bible as a whole is sometimes called "a creation myth" in anthropology jargon, but that does not mean it only about creation. All ancient religious texts deal with both creation and morality, love, and so on.

"Ditto for the Book of Ruth - or Second Chronicles. Is the Book of Proverbs a creation myth? Again - don't think so. The Book of Isaiah? Not a chance."

Right, right. Agree completely. Please do not take the anthro jargon the wrong way.

"The core concerns of the Hebrew scriptures are the nature of God, His relationship to people, and how He expects us to live."

Now THAT'S a myth! At least, I think it is. There is no objective evidence the God exists, and nonexistent beings do not have a nature.

It may not be a myth to you, but it is to me, and to the people who believe in Shinto and other Gods. There are still many Japanese Emperor worshipers and they all think that the Hebrew God is a myth. They don't agree about the nature of His relationship and how He expects us to live. Actually, their God was mainly concerned with how he expected people to die in WWII -- for him. I suppose you would find that sacreligious but every culture has its own deity, and they are often diametrically opposed to one another. What you call a sin they consider a virtue. What you consider a myth, they call the holy truth, and vice versa, as I am sure you know. (Obviously, I think you are both wrong.)

"This '7-day fiat creation' account was never intended to be a 'scientific' explanation of the origin of the universe."

Oh Yes It Was!!! So was Adam and Eve and all the rest. And you can be certain the Japanese and the Greeks, the Aztecs and all other ancient peoples believed their religious stories to be the Gospel Truth. Every word and every contradiction was considered the literal truth, and if you questioned it, they killed you. People used to die at the stake rather than convert. They were not quibbling over symbolic meanings. Most Japanese soldiers in WWII sincerely believed they were dying for a God and for their country, and their souls were going to Yasukuni Jinja. People who questioned the literal truth of that assertion were jailed or beaten to death.

"A quick vignette to say 'God made it all, and here's how you relate to Him and to each other.'"

Right. And that is a myth. Nothing made it all and there is no cosmic intelligence that wants you relate to Him or to each other. Humans and all other forms of life and all objects are the product of natural causes, which have no moral content or meaning. At least, that's how I see it.

Also the parts about the sun standing still in the sky and the New Testament stuff about virgins giving birth are myths -- as you probably agree. The morality of the New Testament is 100% worthwhile and it has nothing to do with myths or superstition, any more than King Lear or Hamlet does.

"The other 99% of the Old Testament is about other concerns entirely."

Yes, yes. Just as Hamlet is mainly about human nature, and only a little about ghosts. I would never say Hamlet is stupid or invalid just because I do not believe in ghosts. On the other hand, ghosts are myths, and that small section of Hamlet is mythical. I expect Shakespeare believed in them, and I know that most of his audience 1600 believed in them, but they were wrong.

"For people who pose as so sophisticated, knowledgeable and broadminded, you're remarkably shallow."

Oh, I am shallow regarding religion! A philistine, I admit. But after all, as you say, the mythical portions of Bible are only a few percent of the whole. I was only addressing those mythical snippets -- Adam and Eve, prayer, God existing, God relating to people and so on. That part is mythical; the rest is fine.

"That is completely wrong! Now you are in my bailiwick. The Hebrew Bible is a creation myth and ancient people believed such myths implicitly."

If this is your bailiwick, then you're remarkably incompetent. There's a short discussion of creation at the beginning of the first book of the Hebrew scriptures, and that's about it. Less than 1% in total. Have you read the Song of Songs? Please try describing it as "a creation myth" with a straight face. Ditto for the Book of Ruth - or Second Chronicles. Is the Book of Proverbs a creation myth? Again - don't think so. The Book of Isaiah? Not a chance. How about Ezra, or Nehemiah? Esther, perhaps? Ooops, no - just a common girl become queen, a clueless king, a wise uncle, and an evil vizier. Or, take a look at any of the minor prophets - the Book of Amos, for example. A burning interest in justice - but no creation myth. Are those too recent for you? Fine - go back to the Torah and pick up the book of Leviticus. Creation myth? Nope - the Mosaic law, in painful detail. Deuteronomy? Again, law, covenant, Moses, and Joshua - but no creation myth.

You people have bought into a stupid, ignorant stereotype of what "ancient religion" really was. (Bet you think the Aeneid, Analects of Confucius and Quran are "creation myths," too.) What do you think the rabbi's spent centuries discussing? And the Greek philosophers? And everyone else before Bacon and Newton? ("Oooh, oooh, oooh - I've got it - it's THREE giant elephants, not FOUR!")

The core concerns of the Hebrew scriptures are the nature of God, His relationship to people, and how He expects us to live.

Even if you look at the most famous of the creation accounts in Genesis, the concerns addressed are not what you might expect. (There are two different ones back to back, didn't you know? They approach it from two different angles, addressing different issues - and the redactor of Genesis included both, without seeing any contradiction between the two.)

This "7-day fiat creation" account was never intended to be a "scientific" explanation of the origin of the universe. That's not a question the people of the time were asking, and the terms used to frame the answer given were totally different from those of modern science. Think about the polytheism of the day. Read in that context, the account carefully goes through and says about all of the heavenly bodies, natural phenomena, and natural creatures that people of that day were worshipping and says "nope, that's not divine - God created that; nope, that's not divine - God created it too; nope, not that either . . ." (As an aside, the second account deals with another issue - the relationship of men to women, and mankind more generally to God and to nature.)

Reading Genesis as if it were written by a flat-earth creationist as an amicus brief to be filed as part of the Scopes trial is a stupid mistake any educated person should be ashamed to make. (It's about as bad as reading Aristophanes as if he were giving a journalistic account of actual day-to-day events in classical Athens.)

But setting that aside, it's just the prologue, stupid! A quick vignette to say "God made it all, and here's how you relate to Him and to each other." The other 99% of the Old Testament is about other concerns entirely.

Oh, I forgot - you thought the purpose of an automobile was to give people a way to listen to the radio.

For people who pose as so sophisticated, knowledgeable and broadminded, you're remarkably shallow.

DEMOS wrote:

". . . you've persuaded me that some people are too invested in their world view to recognize or examine the presuppositions they're making, and have lost the intellectual curiosity to step outside their box and ask new questions or think new thoughts."

With all due respect, I probably have more experience stepping outside my world view than you have. I have read about and experienced a wide variety of religious practices. I have learned many new ideas from people and books in other countries and cultures.

You accuse me of being incurious, but you are wrong. I am curious about religion, but I disagree with its conclusions. I insist on objective, independently verifiable proof of all assertions about the real world, and religion fails to provide that. If someone could demonstrate a miracle or prove that prayer can affect the course of events, I might believe it, although out of force of habit I would look for a naturalistic explanation.

You should accuse me of disagreeing, not of being incurious.

E FAVORITE wrote:

"Also, unless I missed something, it seems that all the discussion about respecting beliefs has been about respecting theists’ beliefs. I wonder if you respect athiests’ non-acceptance of the supernatural and if so, how you show that respect."

The thing is, the interests and demands of the two parties are asymmetrical. Many religious people want to recruit others to their sect, and they crave respect. Many of them demand "undue respect" (Dawkins). Most atheists, on the other hand, do not care whether anyone agrees or not. They do not demand respect, only equality before the law. Mainly, they want to be left alone.

People like Hitchens and Harris are trying to reduce the number of believers, but people like me couldn't care less how many go to church or what they believe. I have no desire to recruit atheists. I find nothing seriously objectionable about mainstream, moderate religions, and much to admire. My objections are philosophical. I think religion is mistaken, but it never hurt anyone to be wrong about an esoteric philosophical issue. People are wrong about all kinds of things! I do not object to religion any more than a Unitarian objects to atheism.

The only religions that cause demonstrable harm are extreme versions that lead to things like the 9/11 attacks or people beating their children in exorcisms.

To me, religion is roughly as important as the choice between Pascal and C++. I am convinced that Pascal is inherently better than C++. I might discuss the issue in depth. But I would never get emotionally worked up about it, or start a National Organization, or try to convert programmers. It is a minor dispute. People should program in whichever language suits them, or works best for the job at hand. (BASIC, on the other hand, is the work of the Devil and must be cast out by all means, including exorcism if that's what it takes.)

Guys, you win. It took your providing an extended object lesson, but you've persuaded me that some people are too invested in their world view to recognize or examine the presuppositions they're making, and have lost the intellectual curiosity to step outside their box and ask new questions or think new thoughts.

Ave atque vale!

Jed: “You have to actually agree that the universe was created by an intelligent entity, or that prayers are answered, or that there can be undetectable & invisible places, or something along those lines. Plus it helps if you can believe women can have babies without having sex.”

Well, speaking from experience, you don’t really have to agree – you’re just expected to stand up with everyone else and mumble the words once a week, in a show of solidarity. In certain liberal churches, nobody really cares if you believe.

I’m enjoying the discussion, guys, but unfortunately don’t have much time to respond right now.

Demos – I wonder if you’re going to repond to my request to explain how a thoughtful Christian reconciles his faith with modern science. If not, fine, I’d just like to know whether to expect it.

Also, unless I missed something, it seems that all the discussion about respecting beliefs has been about respecting theists’ beliefs. I wonder if you respect athiests’ non-acceptance of the supernatural and if so, how you show that respect.

Demos wrote:

"But that's dodging my point. You have arbitrarily limited the realm of discourse to the physical universe."

Well, as far as any person or instrument can tell at present, there is no other universe. Are you postulating that an invisible parallel universe might exist, or Heaven or Hell? You cannot falsify that claim. You cannot test it. There is no way even in principle to prove it or disprove it, so it has no scientific meaning. It may be interesting from a philosophical or logical point of view.

"'If so, cosmology is no longer physics.'

Not everything has to be. Meaningful truth statements can be made about mathematics, and mathematical hypotheses can be disproved."

Of course! Naturally. Mathematics and other non-material entities can even be profitable, as computer programs, for example. However, any assertion about the physical universe, such as its origin, how it will end, the laws governing it and so on, fall in the domain of physical sciences (physics, chemistry, biology, and so on). If we ever discover the reason why the universe sprang into existence at moment of the Big Bang, the answer will framed as a physics equation. It will be confirmed by observation or experiment. Otherwise it will forever remain empty speculation.

Furthermore, no event occurs in the universe that is not governed entirely by physical laws. There are no miracles, no supernatural events, no built-in cosmic justice, and absolutely no trace of intelligent agent running day-to-day events. Nothing like that has ever been observed by objective means, and after all this time I think it is reasonable to assume that nothing ever will be.

As for the other versions of God, I do not see how a cosmic intelligence might have set things in motion at the Big Bang, given the uncertainty principle. In any case explaining the universe by postulating a creator explains nothing. You have only multiplied entities, a violation of Occam's razor. The other arguments for God’s existence were demolished by the ancient skeptics and by Dawkins et al.

"The methods used by the physical sciences are not the only paths to knowledge."

They are the only path to knowledge about the physical universe. They tell us nothing about morality or philosophy.

"You appear to have dismissed out of hand the possibility that philosophy (or cosmology, for that matter) can also be legitimate sources of knowledge. Many of us believe religion can be as well, but if you're unwilling to give serious thought to any form of philosophy other than the physical sciences, we can't get very far with that discussion."

Religion has never discovered a single verifiable fact. All of the assertions made by ancient religion about the structure of the physical universe were later disproved. It remains only as a source of morality and literature. As a method of interpreting, predicting or controlling events around us it has been superseded.

Philosophy alone never discovered even the simplest physical laws. People developed philosophy, mathematics and logic to a high degree in ancient Greece and China, yet they did not work out even one physical law such as Kepler’s or Newton’s laws. Progress did not begin until people united philosophy with observations of nature (especially astronomy) and with experiments. The day that we stop making observations and stop performing experiments, all progress in science will come to a halt. Cosmology divorced from observations and experiment is not science. There can be no physical science progress without confirmation in nature. As I said previously, no question will be resolved, no theory confirmed or overthrown. Of course we can make progress in other fields such as mathematics or programming.

Religion tried to answer questions about how the universe arose, and how people appeared, where morality came from and so on, but all of its answers were wrong.

"'The Bible was written 4000 years ago and it has not changed since then.'

You're illustrating your lack of familiarity with the Bible. None of it (not even the oldest portions of the Hebrew scriptures) dates back that far."

Please do not quibble. I meant that it is an ancient document written long before people had any knowledge of how things work.

"Neither the Hebrew nor the New Testament scriptures were intended to explain the physical workings of the universe (although they do draw many metaphors and figures of speech from the natural world)."

That is completely wrong! Now you are in my bailiwick. The Hebrew Bible is a creation myth and ancient people believed such myths implicitly. They believed the Bible just as much as ancient Japanese people believed in Izanami and Izanagi, and Japanese people in the 1930s worshiped the Emperor as God. Many people today sincerely believe the Bible is the literal truth. I am sure the Bible authors and the actual people portrayed in the Bible believed every word. When Abraham went to sacrifice his son I am absolutely certain he believed that God really had spoken to him. No man would slaughter his own son based on a metaphor or a figure of speech. For that matter, you cannot inspire thousands of kamikaze pilots or 9/11 suicide martyrs to kill themselves based on a metaphor.

(To be fair, I should point out that I know two ex-kamikaze pilot trainees who were complete atheists in 1945, and still are. They were not motivated by Emperor worship.)

"Religion is not complicated. Most of the time is a business; a way to make a living, like farming or shoemaking. The purpose of most religion is not to inform but to enslave men’s minds, and transfer their wealth to the clergy."

This isn't an analysis, it's an insult couched as a naked assertion . . ."

It is an observation. I am a businessman and I know a business when I see it.

"Are you really saying that nothing exists outside the physical universe, or are you saying that we are unable to know if anything exists outside the physical universe?"

I am saying that if we have no way of sensing, confirming or disproving these extra-universal bodies, even in principle, then the assertion is mere speculation. It is an empty hypothetical question can never be addressed or resolved and that will never yield any knowledge.

"Physics and biology can only speak to the current workings (and observable past) of the physical universe."

That is what the Bible tried to do in ancient times. It was not meant to be poetry or a metaphor. It was meant to be the literal truth and many people today still think it is. A few hundred years in Spain they have would have tortured or killed you for saying it is only a metaphor. Actually, if you say it is only metaphor than I do not think you are religious, and I doubt any religious sect would admit you. (Except the Unitarians of course.) Religion consists of belief in supernatural events and entities, not belief in metaphors or figures of speech. You have to actually agree that the universe was created by an intelligent entity, or that prayers are answered, or that there can be undetectable & invisible places, or something along those lines. Plus it helps if you can believe women can have babies without having sex.

>Jed: "A person with a scientific education cannot throw it away at will and substitute superstition. We are as much prisoners of our worldview as anyone else."

Demos: "And that pretty much closes the conversation. The sad part is that by doing so, you've declared yourself to be more close-minded than the many thoughful Christians, Jews and Muslims who accept the value of modern scientific inquiry and use it to inform their understanding of the world and of their faith."

What? not substituting superstition for science is close minded? it's possible to understand and respect how and why ancient people thought without thinking like them, and ignoring the knowledge gained through the ages.

Jed,

in response to my statement that "One thing that seems to me to be blinding you is your apparent blanket assumption that any philosophical or religious thought that posits the existence of anything other than the physical universe that's directly observable to our senses is 'superstition.'"

You said - "In the physical universe. Yes, obviously, by definition. If no instrument or human sense can detect something -- even in principle -- then it does not exist."

But that's dodging my point. You have arbitrarily limited the realm of discourse to the physical universe. There are epistemological arguments for that position - but you haven't made them (and there are other arguments against that view, which I find more persuasive). Based on your comments, you seem almost unaware that this is an assumption on your part, and uninterested in exploring the thinking of philosophers who disagree with you.

"If so, cosmology is no longer physics."

Not everything has to be. Meaningful truth statements can be made about mathematics, and mathematical hypotheses can be disproved. The methods used by the physical sciences are not the only paths to knowledge. You appear to have dismissed out of hand the possibility that philosophy (or cosmology, for that matter) can also be legitimate sources of knowledge. Many of us believe religion can be as well, but if you're unwilling to give serious thought to any form of philosophy other than the physical sciences, we can't get very far with that discussion.

"The Bible was written 4000 years ago and it has not changed since then."

You're illustrating your lack of familiarity with the Bible. None of it (not even the oldest portions of the Hebrew scriptures) dates back that far.

"Of course as ethics and literature the Bible is as valuable today as it was in ancient times, but not a guide to how the universe works."

Here, you're buying into the core fallacy of the flat-earth creationists. Neither the Hebrew nor the New Testament scriptures were intended to explain the physical workings of the universe (although they do draw many metaphors and figures of speach from the natural world).

"Religion is not complicated. Most of the time is a business; a way to make a living, like farming or shoemaking. The purpose of most religion is not to inform but to enslave men’s minds, and transfer their wealth to the clergy."

This isn't an analysis, it's an insult couched as a naked assertion - much as would be the assertion that the study of modern high-energy physics is to generate tenured faculty positions and transfer the wealth of parents and taxpayers to academics.

"For one thing, modern conceptions of matter make it almost as ethereal than the ancient versions of heaven. For another, logic, mathematics or computer programming cannot be observed in the real world, but they are real. Sociology and linguistics have little or presence in the real world."

Then what are your core ontological assumptions? If your conceptions of matter are etherial, how do you establish them and disprove a Buddhist or Daoist conception of reality? Are you really saying that nothing exists outside the physical universe, or are you saying that we are unable to know if anything exists outside the physical universe? You grant that logic and mathematics are real - but alternative geometries are possible, as are alternative systems of logic. No recourse to the physical sciences can referee between them - but within each, we can prove some things true and others false. If any reaches a sufficient level of complexity, there are statemenst the truth of which cannot be determined.

Bottom line, you say "They seek phantoms that physics and biology prove cannot exist."

Physics and biology have done no such thing. Physics and biology can only speak to the current workings (and observable past) of the physical universe. There are logical arguments for supposing that it is, in fact, all that exists. But by their very nature, the physical sciences can't settle the question - because they are inherently limited to their field of study (much as an ethical analysis can never solve a problem in mathematics, and vice versa).

Demos wrote:

". . . many thoughful Christians, Jews and Muslims who accept the value of modern scientific inquiry and use it to inform their understanding of the world and of their faith."

They are kidding themselves, or playing mind games. See the Jacoby quote.

"One thing that seems to me to be blinding you is your apparent blanket assumption that any philosophical or religious thought that posits the existence of anything other than the physical universe that's directly observable to our senses is 'superstition.'"

In the physical universe. Yes, obviously, by definition. If no instrument or human sense can detect something -- even in principle -- then it does not exist. Of course there are mathematical laws, and poetry, morality and a host of ideas outside the physical universe. They can be discovered, invented, refined. They exist only as patterns of electrochemical conditions in our brains, or computer program data.

"That's truly unfortunate - especially since modern physics (cosmology, in particular) is beginning to reach frontiers of thought and speculation where direct observation is becoming more and more difficult and the questions start looking quite metaphysical."

If so, cosmology is no longer physics. If you cannot test it by experiment or observation, it ain't science. There will be no progress in cosmology without the authority of experiments or observations. No dispute will be resolved, and no progress or hypothesis confirmed.

"You're assuming that philosphy and theology have been frozen in time for millenia. That's simply not true."

The Bible was written 4000 years ago and it has not changed since then. Interpretations of it may vary, but you cannot transmute 4000-year-old ignorance into knowledge. Of course as ethics and literature the Bible is as valuable today as it was in ancient times, but not a guide to how the universe works. As for theology, it is mainly hot air as far as I can tell, and it has nothing to do with the practice of religion. Religion is not complicated. Most of the time is a business; a way to make a living, like farming or shoemaking. The purpose of most religion is not to inform but to enslave men’s minds, and transfer their wealth to the clergy.

Other religions have other purposes, but they are equally worldly and transparent. The purpose of modern Japanese shinto religion, which was invented more or less from scratch in the 19th century, was to militarize the nation and conquer Asia. Scientology was invented enrich the Mr. Hubbard. Unitarians mainly want to get together and do good. There are no theological, profound or ineffable reasons for any of these institutions any more than there are for the Shriners or NASCAR.

"I mentioned materialism, and the question was raised 'what's materialism?'"

I know what it is. I meant "what do you have in mind by materialism?" It is an old-fashioned concept, and not particularly applicable to this discussion.

"It was shorthand for a set of philosophical assumptions that you guys appear to be fully bought into- to the extent that you don't even consciously recognize that they are assumptions. I don't want to speak for you, but those might include:

1) Nothing exists other than matter and the physical forces studied by physics;

2) Questions that cannot be answered by direct observation of the physical world are not meaningful . . ."

Well, that’s silly. I never bought into that. For one thing, modern conceptions of matter make it almost as ethereal than the ancient versions of heaven. For another, logic, mathematics or computer programming cannot be observed in the real world, but they are real. Sociology and linguistics have little or presence in the real world. Art, literature and films are about fantasy -- unreal things.

"This background has made me very open to the physical sciences, which rely heavily on mathematics. It's also helped me appreciate metaphysics and theology, which seek to understand through the mind, rather than the lab bench."

They seek phantoms that physics and biology prove cannot exist. Have you not seen the outcome of tests of the efficacy of prayer? Do you seriously entertain, for even one second, ANY of the nonsense advocated by creationism? That some conscious entity designed life forms? Nothing seems less intelligently designed than the human body. As any woman in labor, as they say.

E favorite wrote:

"Jed – where we differ, I THINK, is that I think religion that includes belief in the supernatural should not be encouraged to thrive. Accepted, of course."

Well, I personally would never encourage belief in the supernatural, and if my adult children professed belief I would be disconcerted. But I never tell other people how to live or what to think. Telling other people how to live causes more harm than moderate, modern, denatured religion does. I doubt there are many Presbyterians or Unitarians who actually believe that Christ was born of a virgin, or the sun stood still during the battle of Jericho. I expect they would say that sort of thing is symbolic or poetic. Belief in the power of faith does not hurt unless you take it to extremes and try faith-healing. A sick person who goes the hospital and also prays is no better or worse off than the person who just goes to the hospital.

"I fully support this freedom as set out in our constitution, but I don’t think our government or our educational system should portray these beliefs as preferable or equal to rational thought."

Darn right! Up until the 1980s, the government actively promoted science and rationality, especially in things like the filmstrips and movies shown in public schools. The government promoted the value of science and technology, and encouraged things like math and hygiene. And of course even now evolution is taught in public schools. In my opinion that was tilting a little in favor of rationality. But most people do not see it that way because they think science and religion can get along just fine. They say Christians can reconcile their beliefs with science. I do not think so. As I said earlier in the thread, most scientists are atheists. Jacoby wrote:

". . . Twentieth-century American scientific accommodationists like Gould -- usually not religious believers themselves but fearful of the threat to science from the unreconciled Christian right -- are still bending over backward to reassure the public that there need be no conflict between science and religion. While the reconciliation of science with religion is certainly possible, for individuals as well as for a society, it is a mistake, albeit a soothing one, to suggest that the process is easy or automatic. The scientific method itself, with its demand (as the Times editorial rightly noted in 1873) to 'prove it,' discourages the leaps of faith in the unverifiable that are the essence of any religion. That so many manage to accommodate belief systems encompassing both the natural and the supernatural is a testament not to the compatibility of science and religion but to the flexibility, in both the physical and metaphysical senses, of the human brain."

The fundamentalists who despise evolution are not fools. They have good reasons for despising it. It undermines their worldview. If their children learn it, they are likely to moderate or abandon their parents’ faith. If parents want to keep their children shackled in the dark ages they should send them to private schools or educate them at home.

"A person with a scientific education cannot throw it away at will and substitute superstition. We are as much prisoners of our worldview as anyone else."

And that pretty much closes the conversation. The sad part is that by doing so, you've declared yourself to be more close-minded than the many thoughful Christians, Jews and Muslims who accept the value of modern scientific inquiry and use it to inform their understanding of the world and of their faith.

One thing that seems to me to be blinding you is your apparant blanket assumption that any philosophical or religious thought that posits the existance of anything other than the physical universe that's directly observable to our senses is "superstition." That's truly unfortunate - especially since modern physics (cosmology, in particular) is beginning to reach frontiers of thought and speculation where direct observation is becoming more and more difficult and the questions start looking quite metaphysical.

"telling someone they’re misinformed is not making fun of them or humiliating them – it’s providing information – facts."

That's exactly the problem. Telling someone they're misinformed is sharing your judgement about their beliefs - on the other hand, sharing the reasons that support your judgements, or discussing the reasons behind their judgements will likely get to meaningful facts.

"Yes, it is like that, except that in your analogy you must specify that the social scientist has extremely good reasons for doubting our scientists. To take an imaginary example, suppose your social scientist comes in a time machine from 4000 years in the future. Suppose he knows, based on advanced technology, that most of the assertions made by our scientists and engineers are bunk and superstitious hokum, and that overall our knowledge is only a little more advanced it was in medieval times. (I expect that is, in fact, the case, and that people in the year 6007 will consider us primitive.)"

You're assuming that philosphy and theology have been frozen in time for millenia. That's simply not true. To take a simple example. Augustine in his Confessions discussed his understanding of the origin of the universe in terms of the most current Greek scientific and philosophical thought of the time, reconciling his Christian beliefs with what the best thinkers of the ancient world had to say. Look at some of the work being supported by the Templeton Foundation - it addresses many of the same issues regarding the intersection of science, philosophy and theology. These guys are not fools, nor are they close-minded.

As for how we reconcile science with philosphy or theology, most of us start by thinking hard about exactly what kinds of questions the physical sciences can address. Certainly, they can give us profound insight into the nature and history of the physical universe. Are there any questions the physical sciences cannot address? Are those questions meaningful? (Don't fall into the tautology of saying that they can't be meaningful because examination of the physical world can't address them!) Why is there a physical universe rather than nothing at all?

I mentioned materialism, and the question was raised "what's materialism?" It was shorthand for a set of philosophical assumptions that you guys appear to be fully bought into - to the extent that you don't even consciously recognize that they are assumptions. I don't want to speak for you, but those might include:

1) Nothing exists other than matter and the physical forces studied by physics;

2) Questions that cannot be answered by direct observation of the physical world are not meaningful;

3) If such a question were meaningful, it would be unanswerable because the only source of reliable knowledge is, again, direct observation of the physical universe.

To expose my biases, my formal training is in mathematics - and I always enjoyed the pure stuff rather than application (though to pay the mortgage, I ended up going into finance). In my experience, most mathematicians are at heart instinctive neo-platonists - there's a very clear sense that we're "discovering" rather than "inventing" (even though what we're "discovering" may have no direct correspondence with anything in existance).

This background has made me very open to the physical sciences, which rely heavily on mathematics. It's also helped me appreciate metaphysics and theology, which seek to understand through the mind, rather than the lab bench.

Demos wrote:

"Dawkins wants to study the psychology and behavior of individuals with religious beliefs - without giving any serious consideration to the beliefs themselves."

He does not want to do that; he must. He is incapable of giving serious consideration to these beliefs. So am I. A person with a scientific education cannot throw it away at will and substitute superstition. We are as much prisoners of our worldview as anyone else.

"This is EXACTLY as if a social scientist who did not share the Western scientific world view (a Buddhist perhaps, or a flat-earth creationist for that matter) were to study the psychology and behavior of scientists and engineers - without ever giving serious consideration to their understanding of the world.

Yes, it is like that, except that in your analogy you must specify that the social scientist has extremely good reasons for doubting our scientists. To take an imaginary example, suppose your social scientist comes in a time machine from 4000 years in the future. Suppose he knows, based on advanced technology, that most of the assertions made by our scientists and engineers are bunk and superstitious hokum, and that overall our knowledge is only a little more advanced it was in medieval times. (I expect that is, in fact, the case, and that people in the year 6007 will consider us primitive.)

Today's religious beliefs are based upon texts written 2000 to 4000 years ago. When Dawkins examines these texts and he brings scientific knowledge that is thousands of years more advanced than that the people who wrote the Bible. Of course their knowledge of human nature was as good as his, or Shakespeare's, or Lincoln's. But their assertions about the origin of the earth, the role of faith versus knowledge, ways of discovering facts about nature, and many other subjects were primitive, useless, and alien to the modern mind. Dawkins knows infinitely more about physical reality and how the world works than the ancient authors did. He knows things they never dreamed of. He cannot simply put aside his knowledge and pretend that their worldview has any validity. That would be like a modern doctor visiting a witch doctor and pretending that the witch doctor’s techniques and medicine are equal to his own.

I know several doctors and anthropologists who have visited primitive witch doctors. The modern practitioners are usually impressed by the knowledge and skill of the primitive doctors. If you break a leg or if you are having a baby in the rainforest, and the only person available to help you is a witch doctor, that is better than having no one. But primitive medicine is not even remotely as good as a modern medicine in a hospital.

"He might conclude that there were a number of social and psychological reasons for their beliefs - it's part of a long intellectual tradition in our society, it's woven into the foundation of our educational system, the social and intellecutal status given to scientists and engineers, the intellectual climate of academia that reinforces and rewards those views . . ."

That is a good description. All that is true. The difference between science and religion is not in the social organization or people’s nature, it is in measurable, objective reality. Science works; religion does not. If you are sick prayer will have no effect on your prognosis, whereas modern medicine cures many diseases. If you want to know when the universe was created or how life came about, or what the origin of morality is, science will probably give you valid answers. Incomplete, possibly incorrect, but probably valid. Religion, on the other hand, gives you nothing but mistakes dreamed up by people thousands of years ago, without a shred of supporting evidence.

"It would also show a profound disrespect for both the scientists and their world view."

It would be more disrespectful to pretend that 4000-year-old worldviews are as valid as modern ones. A modern doctor who pretends that a witch doctor is his equal shows no respect for the witch doctor, and he does not fool the witch doctor.

"It presupposes that the substance of that world view not worth serious consideration."

Obsolete worldviews and technologies are not worthy of serious consideration. I am sorry if I offend back-to-the-earth simple lifers, but I have lived in places without modern plumbing or electricity, and worked with manual tools on farms. That is a fascinating and valuable experience, but it is not a serious alternative to modern life. Prayer and faith healing are no substitute for medicine. Sacrificing a goat will NEVER repair an airplane. People who believe in such things are dead wrong. We should study ancient ideas, practices, and world views, but you would not want to live the way people did thousands of years ago, and you should not try to think the way they thought or believe the kind of primitive superstitious ideas they believed in. Frankly, to do so is to disrespect the hundreds of generations of people who struggled to bring about modern technology. Your ancestors left you an infinitely better world than the one they were born into. The most valuable gift they left you is science, rationality, and knowledge of nature, and this knowledge supplants revelation and religion. You should not turn your back on your inheritance.

"It also presupposes that the scientists are the intellectual slaves of the social and economic forces around them, and are unable to form a world view that would be of any value to the researcher."

4000-year-old world views have no value except to archaeology and history.

"This is what Dawkins does. I'd like to suggest, as kindly as possible, that it may well be what you and E. F. are doing."

Yes, quite consciously. I make no bones about it. You might say that I am a time traveler from the past, and from alien cultures. Based on my experience and knowledge I know that the modern era is better.

". . . these are generally pretty backward parts of the world, and it's not just Muslims, Christians and Jews who believe some pretty weird things (among which I'd include the suggestion above that there really may be something to downsing)."

The assertion that there may really be something to dowsing can be tested by experiment. It does not matter how strange dowsing might seem, if it is verified, that will make it true. (It hasn't been tested as far as I know.) You can also test whether prayer and faith healing actually cure disease. This has been done and it has proved that prayer does not work. I do not think there is any need to test whether sacrificing goats will fix an airplane.

"It's critical to remember, though, that the people believing those things are just as smart as we are."

Just as smart of course, but thousands of years behind us. When the Europeans first arrived in Asian and Africa in the 18th and 19th centuries, they were able to conquer millions of people, and massacre thousands with advanced weapons and technology. The people they massacred were just as smart and brave as they were, but a 4000 year advantage in technology is insurmountable.

"The goat may not help the airplane - but even very backward people may know things about life and the world around them that we could benefit from."

Of course they know about life, marriage and love, but they cannot know about the world around them -- physical reality and the origin of life, for example. They do not have the tools. A person cannot be knowledgeable without telescopes, mass spectrometers, mathematics, logic, physics, chemistry, biology and all the rest. Once you become knowledgeable in these subjects, you cannot go back to being ignorant, and believing that sacrificing goats fixes airplanes.

"Beyond that, I'd suggest that your talking to ignorant, backward believers is about as useful as my talking to crackpot backyard ‘scientists’ working to perfect cold fusion or anti-gravity."

Cold fusion is a bad example. I happen to know a lot about that. The people working on that are not in backyards, they are at national laboratories, universities and corporations and they publish in prestigious mainstream peer-reviewed journals. They include lots of scientists who know way more than you do, such as Nobel laureates and the Chairman of the Indian Atomic Energy Commission. See:

http://lenr-canr.org/

"'Faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. The more your beliefs defy the evidence, the more virtuous you are. Virtuoso believers who can manage to believe something really weird, unsupported and unsupportable, in the teeth of evidence and reason, are especially highly rewarded.'

This is flat out incorrect. You may disagree with their reasoning, but thoughtful believers of all faiths insist that faith must be grounded in something real."

They can insist all they like but their assertions are demonstrably irrational and wrong -- assuming "real" means "existing in the physical world" or "capable of affecting physical events." By definition, that which is unseen and unverifiable, and which cannot be tested for or falsified is not real. A phenomenon that cannot be detected -- even in principle -- by objective means outside the human imagination does not exist. It may be an idea or a moral dictum that is inspiring, poetic, spiritually valuable, but it is no more real than a character in a novel.

Not everything that people tell you is right, and not every opinion should be respected. Those old Japanese warriors used to insist that the Chinese welcomed them, but I know for a fact that most Chinese despised them because they committed one of the most bloody & barbaric invasions in history.

"That's why serious theology becomes so similar to metaphysics, why the sources and authenticity of scripture receive so much study . . ."

There can be no authenticity. The assertions made in Scripture are physically impossible. We know how the world works, and we know that prayer does not cure disease or repair airplanes, and that virgins never give birth. The last 4000 years of civilization and technology have taught us these things, and you cannot pretend otherwise.

"Bottom line, there is absolutely no benefit in 'acting' respectful - and people will see through it in a heartbeat. There's great benefit in actually being respectful of people."

There is also a great benefit in being 4000 years ahead of people. There is no benefit at all in pretending you believe in things which you know full well are impossible. People can see through that too. Also, people who are forced to depend upon prayer instead of medicine want nothing more than to join the modern world. In order to do this, they must first abandon their ancient beliefs. If they keep sacrificing goats I guarantee their airplanes will crash. There is no point in pretending that people who live without clothes, computers, telephones, automobiles, antibiotics and guns do not want or need these things, or that they can get them and still live mired 4000 years in the past.

Jed – where we differ, I THINK, is that I think religion that includes belief in the supernatural should not be encouraged to thrive. Accepted, of course. I fully support this freedom as set out in our constitution, but I don’t think our government or our educational system should portray these beliefs as preferable or equal to rational thought.

Demos: “Who said you should lie? You act as if the only options are mockery or hypocrisy….”

Whoa – telling someone they’re misinformed is not making fun of them or humiliating them – it’s providing information – facts. If someone stops to ask you when the game starts tonight and you inform them it’s not tonight, it’s tomorrow, you’ve provided them with a fact – a fact they will probably consider useful, even if they feel a little silly for being confused about the date. I know the examples are different in terms of emotional investment – but the idea is the same and I’d like you to consider thinking about it that way.

“Sure, there are parts of the world where Muslims have some pretty backward beliefs”

Are you suggesting that believing that Mohammed rode through the sky is a backward belief? I think it’s pretty basic to the faith. What about Jesus being born of a Virgin and rising from the dead? Many people (including me, now) think that’s pretty backward. Do you see that as different? A belief that commands respect? Sounds like it, but I’m not sure -- I’m really asking.

Demos, I am sincerely interested in, as you put it "how…a thoughtful Christian reconcile[s] his faith with modern science." If you would explain that here, I’d be very grateful. I really don’t want to get into a debate about it, so I’ll respond, in advance with a sincere and simple thank you, and will also understand if you choose not to take on that task.

Demos - [posted before reading your post of 10:21] I have been very curious about religion over the last couple of years. Some would say rabidly curious. I’ve studied religious and biblical history on my own, have taken church-sponsored courses in the old and new testaments and Christian ethics. I’ve talked in depth with friends and clergy. It has been fascinating.

By the time the “On Faith” forum and Dawkins and Hitchens books came out, I was already a non-believer, but had no idea that there were so many others like me. Through this forum, and “real” discussions, I’m learning more about atheists and believers. I know there are many different types and levels of belief and non-belief, and reasons and motivations, etc. etc. I want to know more about all of that. In the process of discussing these issues, I’m not going to pretend for a minute, that I am open to belief in the supernatural. I’m not.

My computer hung up and then that message I wrote posted twice. This is strange forum software.

E FAVORITE wrote:

"I also avoid debates, for the reasons you give, and also because in some cases, e.g., family, I know how they think and feel, where they are, how they got there, and don’t want to waste our time together in a discussion that’s bound to end in some version of 'It all comes down to faith' and 'You’re going to hell' . . ."

Exactly. It is not a good to challenge deep-seated, irrational ideas that form the core of a person's identity. Not unless you are a trained psychiatrist and the person is paying you for therapy. Dawkins writes that we should not treat religion with undue respect. I agree, but we should also recognize that in its extreme forms it is a mental disease, and most of us are not qualified to deal with such things, so on a personal level it is often best to tiptoe away. When you keep your distance from a psychotic person on the street that is not a form of undue respect.

These extreme ideas are not universal. Many religious people such as Unitarians and Jews would never say -- or think -- that you are going to hell just because you are not a member of their church. It would be ridiculous to call Unitarianism a mental disease.

"There are many, perhaps the majority of religious people in our society whom I see as I think you do – their religious beliefs are harmless to the society, even helpful, to the extent that some religious groups provide useful community services and a supportive social community for its members."

Sure! I think a large majority of religious people are involved for praiseworthy, good reasons. They have done wonderful things for the community. It is not as if all of them refrain from having sex or give their money to multimillionaire corrupt preachers. I approve of nearly everything they do in church. My quibbles are mainly philosophical -- I do not like their logic, and I abhor the practice of teaching children that miracles have occurred and that faith in things unseen is good, because as I said, I see this as a method of breaking down rationality in order to implant dangerous ideas and subservient behavior. Of course they do not see it that way, and that is not their conscious intention.

Religion has many redeeming qualities, and for that matter so did the Imperial Japanese Army. It was an essential institution. If it had not been organized in 1870s Japan probably would have been colonized by the Western powers (including the U.S.) and its culture and economy would have been destroyed. Plus, I certainly agree with the Japanese right-wing politicians who say that it was hypocritical for the U.S. and European powers to demand that Japan pull out of China when they had colonized India, most of Asia, and the Philippines.

". . . many biologists and anthropologists are very curious about these questions. They want to know why people believe, how and why beliefs are passed along, and why people come up with metaphysics. Dawkins summarized the latest thinking on those subjects. If you sincerely want to know what they think, I suggest you read his book."

Jed, I have. But there's a critical distinction here.

Dawkins wants to study the psychology and behavior of individuals with religious beliefs - without giving any serious consideration to the beliefs themselves.

This is EXACTLY as if a social scientist who did not share the Western scientific world view (a Buddhist perhaps, or a flat-earth creationist for that matter) were to study the psychology and behavior of scientists and engineers - without ever giving serious consideration to their understanding of the world. He might conclude that there were a number of social and psychological reasons for their beliefs - it's part of a long intellectual tradition in our society, it's woven into the foundation of our educational system, the social and intellecutal status given to scientists and engineers, the intellectual climate of academia that reinforces and rewards those views, and the higher earning potential available to individuals with those skills and training. Correctly identifying these factors would not in any way undermine the foundations of Western scientific thought - but they could certainly explain why particular scientists and engineers are so firm in their particular beliefs.

It would also show a profound disrespect for both the scientists and their world view. It presupposes that the substance of that world view not worth serious consideration. It also presupposes that the scientists are the intellectual slaves of the social and economic forces around them, and are unable to form a world view that would be of any value to the researcher.

This is what Dawkins does. I'd like to suggest, as kindly as possible, that it may well be what you and E. F. are doing.

I'm more than happy to explore the reasons behind your lack of belief, and my reasons for belief. But it's neither fair nor reasonable to ask me to enter into a discussion where your world view is explained while my psychology is dissected and critiqued. (If you think that makes for a useful discussion, I'd suggest you try it with your "significant other" sometime.)

"For instance, if the subject were the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and a very sincere, intelligent person was arguing that Saddam was behind it, I wouldn’t accept that their thinking was as worthy of respect and consideration as mine. I’d think they were misinformed. I could react by telling them that (let’s say, in the nicest way possible). Then again, I could express false interest and respect for their position, nodding as if I took them seriously and trying to keep a straight face, or I could change the subject or try to get out of there as fast as possible, to avoid further discussion."

Who said you should lie? You act as if the only options are mockery or hypocrisy. In all of these situations, there is a source for the misinformation. People are not misinformed because they are mentally incompitant, nor are you immune from it due to superior intelligence. Telling them they're wrong doesn't help (and really isn't all that satisfying unless you enjoy watching people get mad). A few polite questions can identify the source of their misinformation. If it's a simple factual difference, you can usually clear it up (e.g., "you know, CNN found that photo was faked.") Of course, on the big questions, there are almost always issues of interpretation, the weight to be given to the evidence, and differences in core assumptions. Often, end the end, we just disagree.

"Do you respect the belief that Mohammed rode through the sky on a winged horse? That slaughtering goats can fix electrical problems in an airplane? (This happened a few days ago in a Hindu country, as reported by MSNBC). . . "

I respect them enough to find out what the Muslims around me actually believe - and it looks nothing like what you describe. Sure, there are parts of the world where Muslims have some pretty backward beliefs - these are generally pretty backward parts of the world, and it's not just Muslims, Christians and Jews who believe some pretty weird things (among which I'd include the suggestion above that there really may be something to downsing).

It's critical to remember, though, that the people believing those things are just as smart as we are. They are shaped by their background, culture and education - just like we are. The goat may not help the airplane - but even very backward people may know things about life and the world around them that we could benefit from. Beyond that, I'd suggest that your talking to ignorant, backward believers is about as useful as my talking to crackpot backyard "scientists" working to perfect cold fusion or anti-gravity.

"Faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. The more your beliefs defy the evidence, the more virtuous you are. Virtuoso believers who can manage to believe something really weird, unsupported and unsupportable, in the teeth of evidence and reason, are especially highly rewarded."

This is flat out incorrect. You may disagree with their reasoning, but thoughtful believers of all faiths insist that faith must be grounded in something real. That's why serious theology becomes so similar to metaphysics, why the sources and authenticity of scripture receive so much study, and why thoughtful believers give a great deal of thought to how the teachings of their faiths relate to what we learn of the physical world through science.

There's a lot of real substance there. But there's no point in exploring it with people who simply aren't interested, or can't break through their preconceptions of believers as "deluded, immature, irrational and unscientific" long enough to ask "how does a thoughful Christian reconcile his faith with modern science?"

Bottom line, there is absolutely no benefit in "acting" respectful - and people will see through it in a heartbeat. There's great benefit in actually being respectful of people.

E FAVORITE wrote:

"Another example – If someone were talking as a believer in astrology, I could go through the same range of responses as above. Certainly, the expression of false interest and respect is the most socially acceptable and least antagonistic response. But I don’t think I’ve really respected the person by “acting” respectful. I think I’ve blown them off, which is, in a way, what I think, you’re saying, Jed. 'Let ‘em think whatever foolishness they want' [paraphrasing]."

That is more or less what I have in mind. To put it in a less hypocritical light, I would say: "judge not lest ye be judged." Let me give some more extreme real-life examples. Rather grim examples.

I speak Japanese and translate Japanese books into English, so I have met many Japanese people. They have included a few unreformed, unrepentant ex-members of the Imperial Army and Navy. (They resemble the German ex-soldier I read about who said Hitler was a swell guy, and basically misunderstood.)

Now obviously, as an American whose father and other relatives were in the service in WWII, I do not sympathize with their views. On the other hand, I did not grow up in prewar Japan. I never suffered through the depression, or lived under the military dictatorship. I was never forced to worship the Emperor. It is exceedingly difficult for me to walk in these people's shoes. So how should I react? Should I start screaming about the Bataan death march? Or should I pretend I agree that the U.S. was a fault, and pushed Japan into a corner?

I have also met people with withered arms and other wounds from the Hiroshima atomic bomb. That is awkward.

I have spent 35 years dealing with people, cultures, and history which are very different from our own. Frankly, many Americans would find it unimaginably different, and horrifying in some ways, albeit charming in others. What I have learned from this is the value of tolerance, and not to judge others, but at the same time, I have learned not to abandon or belittle my own roots and beliefs. (Not that I would, but some people do.) There is no patriot more sincere than an expatriot. I would never lash out, taunt, or belittle an ex-Imperial Army soldier, but I would never -- for one second -- back down and apologize for the U.S. role in the war. In these situations, if the old soldier demands a response I would not hesitate to say what I believe, in a quiet, civil, but firm tone: That the U.S. soldiers died to free the Japanese; it was a righteous and necessary war, albeit one fought with unimaginable cruelty. Those old Japanese soldiers owe the Americans a debt of gratitude for freeing them from a fascist government, and they should be glad their side lost. If they don't like that, they can lump it.

If I am cornered by a fundamentalist religious person who demands my opinion (as has happened once or twice), I tell him firmly that I do not believe it, and I leave it at that. I will not debate that any more than I will debate who should have won WWII. By the same token I will NOT challenge that people's most basic beliefs, which define his whole identity. If a religious person wants to challenge his own beliefs, or if he is looking for an argument, I will suggest he read Dawkins.

As for the Hiroshima bomb, I deeply regret that it was not dropped in a demonstration over Tokyo bay, without killing anyone. In hindsight I think this might have persuaded the government to surrender. It was a horrible, morally ambiguous situation.

Jed – your comments are helping me understand my own emerging point of view. Thanks.

I also avoid debates, for the reasons you give, and also because in some cases, e.g., family, I know how they think and feel, where they are, how they got there, and don’t want to waste our time together in a discussion that’s bound to end in some version of “It all comes down to faith” and “You’re going to hell” - said in the most sincere and concerned manner. I might just try the “I think you’re misinformed” line, though, if the opportunity presents itself, and see what happens - being ready to bail if the conversation turns to the old debate.

I really liked your Japanese example. It’s not completely analogous, I don’t think, to religion, but very useful. A critical difference is that the Japanese soldier you describe has no political clout and no substantial following in his culture. While he may fervently hold and express his beliefs, they are not maintaining or gaining traction in his society. In fact, his society has eschewed those beliefs.

There are many, perhaps the majority of religious people in our society whom I see as I think you do – their religious beliefs are harmless to the society, even helpful, to the extent that some religious groups provide useful community services and a supportive social community for its members.

What I see as harmful is that the society implicitly and explicitly supports these beliefs, while discouraging and disparaging lack of belief – portraying non-believers as suspect, unfit for public office, etc. A society that wouldn’t teach astrology in astronomy class, as if they were both credible ways of understanding the universe, engages in a debate about teaching creationism in biology class, as if the Genesis story is on a par with evolution. It’s not – that’s a fact.

So I think we as a society and we as non-believers, are in a significantly different position than you are with the old Japanese soldier. I don’t know how to effectively address the situation, but I’m convinced it must be addressed – just as equal rights for racial minorities and women were addressed. We’re in the process of learning how to do that. Certainly a first step is actively letting believers know we’re out there, all around them, and many of us are very good people, despite our lack of belief.

E FAVORITE wrote:

"Another example – If someone were talking as a believer in astrology, I could go through the same range of responses as above. Certainly, the expression of false interest and respect is the most socially acceptable and least antagonistic response. But I don’t think I’ve really respected the person by “acting” respectful. I think I’ve blown them off, which is, in a way, what I think, you’re saying, Jed. 'Let ‘em think whatever foolishness they want' [paraphrasing]."

That is more or less what I have in mind. To put it in a less hypocritical light, I would say: "judge not lest ye be judged." Let me give some more extreme real-life examples. Rather grim examples.

I speak Japanese and translate Japanese books into English, so I have met many Japanese people. They have included a few unreformed, unrepentant ex-members of the Imperial Army and Navy. (They resemble the German ex-soldier I read about who said Hitler was a swell guy, and basically misunderstood.)

Now obviously, as an American whose father and other relatives were in the service in WWII, I do not sympathize with their views. On the other hand, I did not grow up in prewar Japan. I never suffered through the depression, or lived under the military dictatorship. I was never forced to worship the Emperor. It is exceedingly difficult for me to walk in these people's shoes. So how should I react? Should I start screaming about the Bataan death march? Or should I pretend I agree that the U.S. was a fault, and pushed Japan into a corner?

I have also met people with withered arms and other wounds from the Hiroshima atomic bomb. That is awkward.

I have spent 35 years dealing with people, cultures, and history which are very different from our own. Frankly, many Americans would find it unimaginably different, and horrifying in some ways, albeit charming in others. What I have learned from this is the value of tolerance, and not to judge others, but at the same time, I have learned not to abandon or belittle my own roots and beliefs. (Not that I would, but some people do.) There is no patriot more sincere than an expatriot. I would never lash out, taunt, or belittle an ex-Imperial Army soldier, but I would never -- for one second -- back down and apologize for the U.S. role in the war. In these situations, if the old soldier demands a response I would not hesitate to say what I believe, in a quiet, civil, but firm tone: That the U.S. soldiers died to free the Japanese; it was a righteous and necessary war, albeit one fought with unimaginable cruelty. Those old Japanese soldiers owe the Americans a debt of gratitude for freeing them from a fascist government, and they should be glad their side lost. If they don't like that, they can lump it.

If I am cornered by a fundamentalist religious person who demands my opinion (as has happened once or twice), I tell him firmly that I do not believe it, and I leave it at that. I will not debate that any more than I will debate who should have won WWII. By the same token I will NOT challenge that people's most basic beliefs, which define his whole identity. If a religious person wants to challenge his own beliefs, or if he is looking for an argument, I will suggest he read Dawkins.

As for the Hiroshima bomb, I deeply regret that it was not dropped in a demonstration over Tokyo bay, without killing anyone. In hindsight I think this might have persuaded the government to surrender. It was a horrible, morally ambiguous situation.

DEMOS wrote:

"I'd just like some of the materialists of the world to get curious enough to say 'hey, what's so interesting about all this metaphysics and theology stuff, and why do so many people think there's something to it?'"

I am not sure what a "materialist" would be, but many biologists and anthropologists are very curious about these questions. They want to know why people believe, how and why beliefs are passed along, and why people come up with metaphysics. Dawkins summarized the latest thinking on those subjects. If you sincerely want to know what they think, I suggest you read his book.

The structure and purpose of theology is a fascinating subject. Of course there are mitigating, positive aspects to religion, but as I see it, the main purpose is to act as a kind of mental spider's web: to capture believers, anesthetize them to keep them from questioning or escaping (by promise of heaven and threats of Hell, for example), and to motivate them to go out and entangle more people in the web, by proselytizing. It is a self-replicating social system, finely tuned over generations to survive and flourish.

It includes built-in methods to overcome instinctual objections, similar to military training techniques that inhibit or squelch the soldier's natural desire to flee the battlefield. For example, Dawkins cites this tenet, which obviously serves to squelch rationality and prevent people from reaching sane, self-evident conclusions:

"Faith (belief without evidence) is a virtue. The more your beliefs defy the evidence, the more virtuous you are. Virtuoso believers who can manage to believe something really weird, unsupported and unsupportable, in the teeth of evidence and reason, are especially highly rewarded."

This explains why religion is so keen to make people believe in absurd notions such as virgin birth or the sun standing still in the sky. The crazier the idea is, the more effective it will be in destroying the believer's rationality, once you get him to swallow it. A person who breaks down enough to believe in a virgin giving birth can easily be persuaded to believe in crazy ideas that run counter to natural instinct and self-preservation, such as the notion that you should die a martyr, or that sex is sinful, or you should hand over your money to a multi-millionaire mega-church preacher so he can buy another dozen automobiles for himself.

It is a spooky system. As I said earlier, I don't mind other people doing it, but I wouldn't want to participate. It is kind of like meeting a married couple who are into S&M. If that makes them happy -- fine. I do not judge other people's lifestyle. I never tell other people how to live. But even though I have been around the world and seen many different people and different cultures, things like this still give me the creeps.

Demos and Jed - There’s a lot of stuff here to respond to – I may not hit it all.

Demos – You say, “Their [believers’] thinking is worthy of respect and consideration (just as yours is)." This sounds nice – respectful and balanced. And as nice as that is, I don’t think it applies in every situation and certainly not this one.

For instance, if the subject were the 9-11 terrorist attacks, and a very sincere, intelligent person was arguing that Saddam was behind it, I wouldn’t accept that their thinking was as worthy of respect and consideration as mine. I’d think they were misinformed. I could react by telling them that (let’s say, in the nicest way possible). Then again, I could express false interest and respect for their position, nodding as if I took them seriously and trying to keep a straight face, or I could change the subject or try to get out of there as fast as possible, to avoid further discussion.

Another example – If someone were talking as a believer in astrology, I could go through the same range of responses as above. Certainly, the expression of false interest and respect is the most socially acceptable and least antagonistic response. But I don’t think I’ve really respected the person by “acting” respectful. I think I’ve blown them off, which is, in a way, what I think, you’re saying, Jed. “Let ‘em think whatever foolishness they want” [paraphrasing]. Like, you, I’d never bring up what I consider to be their misinformed ideas, but if they bring it up or we’re in a situation were the whole idea is to have an honest, respectful dialogue, then I have difficulty imagining entering into that dialogue dishonestly and having anything good come of it. I don’t know if I’ll have the courage to be so straightforward, when actually in a situation like that, but I hope I will. Maybe it won’t work out well, but it’s worth a try or two. I really thing something’s got to give and now is an opportunity.

Demos - Do you respect the belief that Mohammed rode through the sky on a winged horse? That slaughtering goats can fix electrical problems in an airplane? (This happened a few days ago in a Hindu country, as reported by MSNBC). That a Jewish carpenter whose mother was a virgin rose from the dead? You may believe that one of these is possible and think the others are silly. I think they are all silly. (As Dawkins would say -Believers are already atheists about all gods but their own. I go one god further.) Yet I can respect not the belief, but the people that believe such things, because I know, from personal experience, as well as study and observation, that people have been inculcated with beliefs like this.

How does this resonate with you?

E FAVORITE wrote:

"Jed - I've read the books you mention - and then some. At this point I'm more curious about people than about the big questions."

I find people infinitely more interesting than the so-called "big questions." The big questions are a bunch of hooey. Stick to people and Shakespeare's plays, say I.

Demos wrote:

"'Frankly, I find this sort of metaphysical speculation pointless and boring."

The fact that metaphysical questions bore you does not make them meaningless, or delegitimize metaphysics as a valid approach to seeking knowledge."

As far as I can tell, most of these questions are meaningless. The religious texts I have read are chock full of logical errors and contradictions. But, as I said, I have not made a serious study because the subject bores me, so perhaps there are other metaphysical texts that I would find valid and reasonable. Anyway, I don't give a hoot whether God exists or not, so why should I pursue the matter?

"But recognize that metaphysics is just like science . . ."

I see practically no resemblance! Of course they both sprang from the same ancient academic traditions, so there are commonalities, but you might as well compare astrology to astronomy.

"Scholars have been hashing, re-hashing and testing their logic out on each other for centuries. Odds are the 'elementary logical fallacies' you seen are well recognized, and their implications and alternative solutions have been thoroughly worked out."

That's right. Fallacies such as "appeal to the consequences of a belief" were cataloged thousands of years ago. To put it another way, skeptics in ancient times proved that religion is illogical. I am satisfied by the skeptical arguments. There has no progress or change as far as I know. You can see a list of fallacies, many with religious examples, here:

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

"The Appeal to the Consequences of a Belief is a fallacy that comes in the following patterns:

1. X is true because if people did not accept X as being true then there would be negative consequences.

2. X is false because if people did not accept X as being false, then there would be negative consequences.

3. X is true because accepting that X is true has positive consequences. . .

Example: 'God must exist! If God did not exist, then all basis for morality would be lost and the world would be a horrible place!'"

"Jed, when you lead with a 'such people' attitude, it's no wonder when you get a poor response. . . When you approach any believer, before they open their mouths, assuming that they are 'deluded, immature, irrational and unscientific' you come across as too close minded and prejudiced . . ."

You have missed my point completely! I would NEVER approach a believer or say such a thing. I might think it, but I would not say it any more than I would say: "Gee, your wife sure is a fat slob, isn't she?" There is no point to hurting people's feelings, or riling them for no reason. If a fellow is happy with a fat wife or a silly religion, more power to him! I am happy for him. Why should I care? Even if I could dissuade him, why would I want to disillusion him and make him unhappy in marriage or dissatisfied on Sunday mornings? Love is blind and happy is happy, and a modicum of superstition seldom hurts anyone.

I have lived overseas and seen many different religious practices & ceremonies. I would never denigrate one. I don't recall a religious person asking me what I thought of these ceremonies.

On rare occasions when a fundamentalist or creationist tries to proselytize me, I have politely told him he is wasting his time, and I changed the subject. I have heard enough about creationism already. I would not waste my time debating such nonsense.

I do not wish to convert religious people, and I sure as heck do not want them trying to convert me. For most of U.S. history the two groups got along fine. In the 19th century, nationally prominent atheists such as Ingersoll were widely respected by religious and non-religious people alike. I expect we will return to that status quo in a few years, after the current religious revival cools down, and people come back to their senses. Atheists will go thinking that religious people are daft fools, and the religious will remain convinced that atheists are going to Hell. That's fine with me!

I must say though, getting back to the origin of this thread, I am glad to see Hitchens and Dawkins on the best seller lists. That is a sign that the revival is beginning to ebb, and society is getting back to normal. If the balance swings more toward atheism as it has in Europe, I suppose our society will be healthier & happier, albeit less interesting. But as I said, religion causes little harm and some good, and frankly I do not understand why Hitchens is so upset by it. Dawkins and Jacoby are much less upset, and more intelligent, in my opinion.

Demos: ""But it won’t if we’re continually told that it’s better to believe in an invisible supernatural being than not to believe in one." When did I say that? "

You didn't - that's what I think society says.

Jed - I've read the books you mention - and then some. At this point I'm more curious about people than about the big questions.

I'll be back here later with more comments for both of you.

thanks for the conversation.

"Is it “completely blow[ing] off their core convictions” to say, politely, of course, that “I think belief in the supernatural is non-factual and superstitious. I think people who believe in the supernatural are misinformed just as I think people who don’t think cigarette smoking is harmful are misinformed.” "

It depends, of course, on the context and exactly how you do it. In most cases I'd suggest that there are better ways to handle it. If you want a real dialogue, I'd suggest opening with something like "I've never been able to believe in the supernatural because . . . " and give a short summary of your reasoning (e.g., because it seems to me that most things that used to be explained by the supernatural have now been successfully explained by science). Then follow it up with something along the lines of "tell me why you're convinced that the supernatural is real" - and genuinely listen to the answer. There's no telling what you may get - it could be something simple like "I'm not so convinced by the science," or it could be more sophisticated such as "I'm convinced that there are meaningful questions that the physical sciences are not well suited to addressing."

"But it won’t if we’re continually told that it’s better to believe in an invisible supernatural being than not to believe in one." When did I say that? I do, for reasons that I find logically persuasive, but the idea of there being some moral virtue in believing something you know to be false is absurd. I'd just like some of the materialists of the world to get curious enough to say "hey, what's so interesting about all this metaphysics and theology stuff, and why do so many people think there's something to it?"

Honesty is great. But if the honest truth is "I know I'm right, and you're wrong, and we can talk but I won't seriously entertain the possibility that it could be otherwise" then any statement of respect that you may preface it with is going to ring pretty hollow.

How do you react to believers who take that approach with you?

"Frankly, I find this sort of metaphysical speculation pointless and boring."

The fact that metaphysical questions bore you does not make them meaningless, or delegitimize metaphysics as a valid approach to seeking knowledge. There's a lot of bad metaphysics out there - just like there's a lot of bad science. But recognize that metaphysics is just like science - you can build a reputation by falsifying an old theory and establishing a new, better one. Scholars have been hashing, re-hashing and testing their logic out on each other for centuries. Odds are the "elementary logical fallacies" you seen are well recognized, and their implications and alternative solutions have been thoroughly worked out.

"Be careful what you disbelieve in." This is very good advice, that I heartily agree with. I'd apply it a great deal more broadly than to simply biology, though.

Jed, when you lead with a "such people" attitude, it's no wonder when you get a poor response. Any husband who's tried to "tell" his wife how things should be, rather than discussing them with her, knows this in his bones. And frankly, it's what you should expect. When you approach any believer, before they open their mouths, assuming that they are "deluded, immature, irrational and unscientific" you come across as too close minded and prejudiced to be worth talking to. (And if that's how you typically approach religion, I sincerely doubt that you really understand what thoughtful believers think, why they think it, and the huge diversity of opinions you'll find among them.)

E Favorite wrote:

"'. . . I think people who believe in the supernatural are misinformed just as I think people who don’t think cigarette smoking is harmful are misinformed.' It’s pretty unusual, granted, to approach a discussion on religion this way . . ."

Actually, that is not unusual. That is the sort of thing many anthropologists, biologists and other educated observers say.

". . . but it’s certainly honest, and not far out, or insulting to tell someone you respect that you think they’re misinformed about something."

Fundamentalist religious people will be upset and insulted no matter how politely or diffidently you express the thought. Unitarians, on the other hand, don't mind at all.

"I know one of the most common is that they were taught as a child by the people they trusted the most."

Right. This is the most common way people acquire religion, as Dawkins and many others have pointed out.

"What do you think?"

I think you should read Dawkins, and anthropology. If you are curious or puzzled by such ideas, you will enjoy that.

I have no interest in religion per se, but I do love anthropology. It teaches many wonderful things about people's beliefs. The trouble is, it also teaches objectivity and how to mentally distance yourself from society. The habit, once formed, is difficult to shake. You will likely find yourself calling into question many beliefs in your own culture. That's okay if you don't mind living with uncertainty, but it makes some people uncomfortable.

Is it “completely blow[ing] off their core convictions” to say, politely, of course, that “I think belief in the supernatural is non-factual and superstitious. I think people who believe in the supernatural are misinformed just as I think people who don’t think cigarette smoking is harmful are misinformed.” It’s pretty unusual, granted, to approach a discussion on religion this way, but it’s certainly honest, and not far out, or insulting to tell someone you respect that you think they’re misinformed about something. It’s very different from telling them they’re stupid, crazy, disreputable or foolish.

I know there are different ways that people come by their beliefs. I know one of the most common is that they were taught as a child by the people they trusted the most. I also know that the society (at least in the US) encourages this belief and discourages not believing. I think that like belief in astrology, this belief in the supernatural will eventually fall away in many people – as it has in other parts of the world where people are educated and informed. But it won’t if we’re continually told that it’s better to believe in an invisible supernatural being than not to believe in one. Or if we’re told than religious people are more moral than non-religious people and that non-believers are not suitable for public office. None of those things are honest. (I realize some might disagree about that – I would say they’re misinformed.)

So maybe a little honesty, presently respectfully, of course, would not be such a bad thing. It might even be a breath of fresh air. I think it’s better, ultimately, than being quiet, or being dishonest - saying you respect something when you really don’t. I could even honestly preface my remarks by saying “I respect you and I respect your right to your beliefs….”

What do you think?

Demos wrote:

"I understand your difficulty taking anything non-physical seriously. But it's not only flat-earth creationists who've given serious thought to metaphysical systems that include mind or spirit in addition to matter. . . . Their thinking is worthy of respect and consideration (just as yours is)."

Frankly, I find this sort of metaphysical speculation pointless and boring. The arguments are unconvincing. Most of them are elementary logical fallacies, as I said. A 400-page history book about 19th century Austrian tax laws would be worthy of respect and consideration by someone, but it would bore me to death. I have no objection to people practicing religion anymore than I object to people doing opera or the Japanese tea ceremony, but by the time you get to be my age you know that some things do not interest you. Life is too short to bother with them.

"Why is divisivness harmful? It undermines joint effort. It creates political gridlock. It fosters ill-will, and undermines our ability to seek mutually acceptable solutions to common problems. It fosters hate, prejudice, and ill-will."

It also fosters rivalry, competitiveness, independent thinking, and bold combatant creativity. Ill-will can be good for you. Many important thinkers and most master capitalists have been divisive, and destructive. They do not cooperate with other people; they bankrupt them. People like Carnegie and Gates are widely hated because they are so competitive, but they have made essential contributions to society.

"'How much do you respect people’s belief in astrology?' Yeah, that can be a tough one. But like many people, I'm just a generation or two away from the farm. Older people in my family believe in dowsing for water - college educated, professional people. Do I believe in dowsing? No. But they grew up in an environment where water was a matter of life or death for a farm, and dowsing was a routine part of life (and somehow the dowsers managed to pull of an impressive record of successful wells, even though I sincerely doubt that it was the business with the stick that did it)."

Be careful what you disbelieve in. Biology is far more complex and subtle than anyone can grasp. Humans and other animals have an astounding ability to find water. Presumably they rely on sense of smell and subtle visual clues. The process must be instinctual and unconscious. If it can be shown that dowsing works better than a random search (which seems likely to me), and the people who practice it feel they can enhance their success rate by holding a stick, then however strange that may seem it is probably true, and there must be a reason. Let me go on a limb (or a rod in this case) and speculate about why this might be so. There are a great many nerve endings in the hand. It is one of the best external connections to the brain. As great painters and pianists demonstrate, the hands are our most expressive organs, best able to express unconscious motivation and ability. Subtle, unconscious movements by the hands are amplified and made visible by the leverage of the stick. In other words, a person holding a stick can see more clearly when his own hands tend to point to one direction or another. It is hard to imagine a better way to tap into the unconscious mind. If careful statistical tests demonstrated that dowsing works, I would not be a bit surprised.

Note that there have been careless and absurdly artificial tests of dowsing, such as those conducted by the Great Randi (I think it was) in which several pipes were buried underground and dowsers were asked to identify which pipe had running water in it. This in no way resembles a natural situation such as an ancient primate looking for water in the Kalahari Desert. People are not likely to be evolved with an ability to sense water in underground PCB pipes, whereas we do have inborn abilities to spot water in natural circumstances, as any experienced desert dweller can demonstrate.

"How can you have fruitful, ongoing discussions with believers?"

Why should you? As Jefferson said, other people's religious beliefs do not break my leg or pick my pocket. I suppose they are wrong, but people are wrong about all sorts of things, and it seldom does any harm. As long as they do not bother me I don’t mind a bit what they think.

"Try to genuinely understand exactly what it is that they really believe . . ."

I think I do understand exactly what they really believe. I could be wrong, but it seems clear to me that they are making logical errors and engaging in wishful thinking and so on. I think Dawkins did a good job of analyzing religious beliefs and behavior, and the likely sources of the behavior. You see the same kind of thinking in stockmarket investors and other groups of people. It is not profound.

"If you do both politely, everyone comes away better off."

Religious people treasure religion. Some value it more than their own lives. There is no way you can politely tell such people you think they are making logical errors and engaging in wishful thinking. No matter how Dawkins or I might sugarcoat our opinion (not that he would ever sugarcoat an opinion!) a religious believer will see that we think he is deluded, immature, irrational and unscientific. This is bound to upset him. That is why I never try to dissuade a religious person. It is like telling a doting husband that his wife is a fat slob. Even if she is, manifestly, a fat slob, why hurt his feelings? It serves no purpose and does no good.

Guys, I'm struggling here.

You can't ask for "people with different opinions and beliefs to respect ME enough to engage in dialogue with me" if you completely blow off their core convictions - and even if you were crass enough to ask for it, it isn't going to happen.

I understand your difficulty taking anything non-physical seriously. But it's not only flat-earth creationists who've given serious thought to metaphysical systems that include mind or spirit in addition to matter. It may strike you as obviously non-factual, but there are many rational, educated people who would disagree with you (logical positivism hasn't necessarily won the philosophical day yet). Their thinking is worthy of respect and consideration (just as yours is).

Why is divisivness harmful? It undermines joint effort. It creates political gridlock. It fosters ill-will, and undermines our ability to seek mutually acceptable solutions to common problems. It fosters hate, prejudice, and ill-will. It reduces the willingness of taxpayers to support public funding of institutions that teach or otherwise espouse different views.

The motto "disreputable people and fools deserve no respect" is a recipe for closing minds (and not just theirs - yours as well). Why would anyone, after giving it thought, say "it would creep me out if the creationists suddenly began to respect my convictions?" What is so disturbing by the idea that a creationist would say "you know, he's a smart guy and seems to genuinely believe what he says - just what exactly would make someone believe that instead of Creationism?" It's certainly not going to hurt you.

"How much do you respect people’s belief in astrology?" Yeah, that can be a tough one. But like many people, I'm just a generation or two away from the farm. Older people in my family believe in dowsing for water - college educated, professional people. Do I believe in dowsing? No. But they grew up in an environment where water was a matter of life or death for a farm, and dowsing was a routine part of life (and somehow the dowsers managed to pull of an impressive record of successful wells, even though I sincerely doubt that it was the business with the stick that did it).

So, I disagree with intelligent, well-educated family members who are very close to me. I listen to them, though, and I don't mock what they say. I've even tried to understand why they, after taking science and mathematics courses in college (albeit a long time ago), would still be convinced that there's something to dowsing. That level of respect is really not that hard, and it's something simple that I owe to these family members. If nothing else, it's given me a better understanding of the time and place in which they grew up.

How can you have fruitful, ongoing discussions with believers? Assume that they have at least average intelligence, and really do want to understand the world correctly. Try to genuinely understand exactly what it is that they really believe, and what convinced them to believe that (it's hard - just as hard as it might be for a Chicago School economist to understand, in his gut, how anyone could be a Keynesian). And share exactly what you believe, and why. If you do both politely, everyone comes away better off.

9/17/07 http://newsweek.washingtonpost.com/onfaith/faithbook/2007/09/which_one_is_it.html
Demos - thanks for your response - you too Jed.

Mainly, I Ditto what Jed said. Also, I would like people with different opinions and beliefs to respect ME enough to engage in dialogue with me -- and I've often found that to be the case.

I admit, the further I get away from supernatural beliefs myself, the harder it is for me to feign respect for those beliefs. You know, I could respect your convictions about things I don’t personally like, but it gets harder when it’s about something that to me is [now] so obviously non-factual. It’s not a matter of having separate convictions. It’s that I think belief in the supernatural is non-factual and superstitious. I think people who believe in the supernatural are misinformed just as I think people who don’t think cigarette smoking is harmful are misinformed. It’s not a matter of conviction – it’s a matter of knowledge. I’d be fine with a religion that has good works, compassionate teachings, a nice community and no supernatural beliefs. (Unitarianism and Humanistic Judaism come to mind)

33% of Americans believe that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9-11. http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003638490 Should we respect that belief? How much do you respect people’s belief in astrology? Until a few centuries ago, it was a respected means of understanding the stars, until the science of astronomy was developed. Remember the flap when it was learned that Nancy Reagan was consulting an astrologer in the White House? Many people openly considered that belief of hers to be ridiculous, but they still respected her as a person and as first lady.

Demos, I appreciate you engaging with us on this and I would love to find ways to have a fruitful ongoing discussions with believers. Please keep thinking about it.

Demos wrote:

"Anonymous said: "My what a New Age concept! No, I do not expect people to do that. . . ."

That was me. For some reason the name did not attach.

". . . intellectual respect isn't some sort of minor courtesy that you extend to people to make them feel better (e.g., "oh my, what a nice hat!). It's a necessary requirement for us to learn from each other, and for us to truly test ideas and world views against each other and find the best synthesis possible at the time."

Honestly, I am not interested in learning from religious people any more than I am interested in learning how to play bridge or tennis. I just want them to leave me alone.

I know many fine & intelligent people who believe in religion, and I do not have the slightest objection to their beliefs. The only religious people who bother me are those who try to shove their doctrine into laws and biology textbooks.

"It's also necessary if we want to avoid a polarized, divisive society."

What harm is there in having a polarized society? I do not understand this modern notion that there is something wrong with divisiveness. Society has always been divided between haves and have-nots, Democrats and Republicans, workers and capitalists. Our common ground is respect for the Constitution and the rule of law. We do not need more than that. We sure do not need a homogeneous society. Why should anyone pretend to respect ideas that he finds absurd or unproductive? This is Politically Correct, New Age foolishness. It is alien to U.S. traditions. Can you imagine Mark Twain acting this way? Imagine how boring the Daily Show would be if the writers showed respect for the people they lampoon. Ours is a cynical, worldly society where people speak plainly without worrying about other people's sensitivities.

"Respect does not require agreement."

Respect and agreement have never been part of the U.S. tradition. Sarcasm, acrimony and vigorous disagreement are the hallmark of our society. The only thing you have to agree on is to abide by the election results.

". . . the result is that neither of us will learn from the other, and neither of us will have the opportunity to refine our thinking based on the insights of the other."

I am happy to forgo such opportunities. Life is too short to take seriously every fad, fancy and foible.

"Respecting my beliefs only requires taking the seriously enough, out of respect to me, to actually listen and think."

I think you have to make an essential distinction here. There are many religious beliefs regarding ethics and so on that I do take seriously and I do respect. I have read religious and philosophical texts about these subjects and found them fruitful. However, I agree with Thomas Jefferson about revelation: miracles, supernatural and the like. These aspects of religion leave me cold. I have zero respect for assertions that a virgin gave birth to a child, Lazarus came back from the dead, life did not evolve, or morality has a supernatural origin. Morality is plainly the product of evolution and it is common to other primates and other intelligent species. Also, it irks me when people commit logical fallacies such as appeal to the consequences of a belief. Asking me to respect such silly mistakes is like asking me to respect the equation "pi equals exactly 3.2" (which a religious sect once proclaimed).

"Perhaps you want your agnosticism or atheism to be respected by people?"

Nope.

"(E.F. and Anonymous, do you want to comment? Are believers under ANY obligation to respect you or you convictions? . . ."

None whatever. On the contrary, it would creep me out if the creationists suddenly began to respect my convictions. You have to respect the laws and other people's rights. You should be polite to people who act politely to you. Anything beyond that is a gift, which some people do not deserve. Disreputable people and fools deserve no respect. We seem to have forgotten that in this politically correct age. We should learn to be snooty again, and to express high dudgeon. Practice glaring at people and saying: “How dare you!?!” and "What unscientific nonsense!" That was a put-down back in 1900, and more's the pity it isn't now.

EF said: "Really, it’s not important to me that people give me broad respect. I’m secure enough not to need it."

and Anonymous said: "My what a New Age concept! No, I do not expect people to do that. Frankly, I couldn't care less what people think of my philosophy or beliefs, or how disrespectful they are."

I'm convinced that both of their comments miss the point - intellectual respect isn't some sort of minor courtesy that you extend to people to make them feel better (e.g., "oh my, what a nice hat!). It's a necessary requirement for us to learn from each other, and for us to truly test ideas and world views against each other and find the best synthesis possible at the time. It's also necessary if we want to avoid a polarized, divisive society. You may not care what I think about you - but it benefits no one if our communities are so divided that we cannot have a meaningful civil discourse with each other.

Respect does not require agreement. It does require that I recognize that I can be wrong, and that you could be right - even if that seems unlikely to me, and even if you're only right in some relatively minor ways. If you don't take me seriously enough to listen to what I say, and understand what would make me say it, then we can't have a meaningful dialogue - the result is that neither of us will learn from the other, and neither of us will have the oportunity to refine our thinking based on the insights of the other. Respecting my beliefs only requires taking the seriously enough, out of respect to me, to actually listen and think. It's not that hard, and you might learn something - and even if you don't, the conversation may help me learn something.

Candide, when you asked, "if gays can demand rights and recognition, why not agnostics and atheists?," what rights were you thinking of? The right to marry? Might be an issue for gays, but I've never heard of a prohibition on agnostics or atheists marrying. The right to vote? The right to free speach? Publish books? The right to stay home from church, synagogue or mosque?

Perhaps you want your agnosticism or atheism to be respected by people? I'd suggest you chat with E.F. and Anonymous about whether or not we should expect people to respect the convictions of people they disagree with. (E.F. and Anonymous, do you want to comment? Are believers under ANY obligation to respect you or you convictions? Does Candide have any gripe here?)

Julius Caesar first said, "To conquer a nation, one must first divide it." Look at the divisions our leaders have created. Republican/Democrat, evangelical/secular, straight/gay, and a thousand other non-issues are promoted for us to quarrel over, while our country and resources are stolen out from under us. How did this happen?
Another Caesar tip: "Beware the leader who bangs the drums of war in order to whip the citizenry into a patriotic fervor, for patriotism is indeed a double-edged sword. It both emboldens the blood, just as it narrows the mind. And when the drums of war have reached a fever pitch and the blood boils with hatred and the mind has closed, the leader will have no need in seizing the rights of the citizenry. Rather, the citizenry, infused with fear and blinded by patriotism, will offer up all of its rights unto the leader and gladly so. How do I know? For this is what I have done. And I am Caesar."

Just 2 things.

1. There is no 12-step program to get Jesus out of your life. Yeah, just read that at face value, okay?

2. Let me suggest the "shoving match" between evangelicals, the rural devout and what used to be "moderately religious mainstream America" was started by Phyllis Schafly to fight the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment. This movement began in the mid-70's and has relied solely on negativism, demonizing your opponent and the idea no compromise is possible in the "eyes of the Lord." The current disgust with organized religion is all those chickens come home to roost. Might be a good idea to return to the America that left you alone to worship as you please–––with the tacit understanding that you leave the rest of us alone!

It is about time that non-believers found the courage to challenge childish religion.

If gays can demand rights and recognition, why not agnostics and atheists? America is the only developed nation which has kept its childish belief in the Blue Fairy.

Priver – oops – looks like I was wrong about herald/harold. Sorry about that.

Still, there is some disagreement about “Hark the ‘herald’ or ‘harold’ angels sing.”

Priver: "I suspect you'd find among the Jewish leaders that a LOT of them see the entire biblical story as metaphor"

So do I, but I'm amazed at how slowly this perception has traveled to the average person - and I suspect the Jewish leaders have something to do with that -- Christian leaders as well, because, if Exodus didn't happen, well, what does that say about the foundation of Christianity? Also, it seems like this is too controversial a story for the media to want to break - though new discoveries at Stonehenge made the front page a few months back.

On another subject - I love your "Harold be thy name" story. For best effect, I suggest that in the explanation, you correct the spelling: "Herald be thy name."

JED ROTHWELL -- thank you - that was great. Very well said. And yes, more than two links, and your post is rejected.

Demos wrote:

"[Hitchens] is a handy example, since his book is the most sensation recent volley from his side, but the cultural debate has been going on for at least the last hundred years or so."

I do not think much of Hitchens, but anyway, this debate has been going on for thousands of years. In Europe and Japan the atheists have largely prevailed, and most people no longer believe in God. This bothers some religious people who feel that they have a god-given right to win the debate, and that something is wrong with society when people stop going to church and stop believing in God. Since there is less crime and fewer social problems in Europe and Japan these people are evidently wrong. I myself don't care what other people believe, and religion does little harm and some good I suppose, but on the whole atheism seems more rational, mature and progressive.

"If not, do you expect people to treat your personal philosophy and beliefs with that level of respect?"

My what a New Age concept! No, I do not expect people to do that. Frankly, I couldn't care less what people think of my philosophy or beliefs, or how disrespectful they are. I am an old fashioned American, and I say that as long as people leave me alone and do not interfere with my rights, or force me to pay for for their religion, they can think, say, or do anything they please. It is a free country. To hell with this touchy-feely saccharine concern for other people's feelings. It has no place in our traditions.

E Fav:

I suspect you'd find among the Jewish leaders that a LOT of them see the entire biblical story as metaphor. I can't say all, cause there's some in every group- but there isn't nearly as much insistence on such concepts as inerrancy for Jews.

It seems to be more important to stress the need for doing things to help each other out- at least that was the Judaism I was raised with. It's certainly not unique to any religion- or even religion in general- but if that's what someone can get out of their faith, or lack thereof, I'm all for that.

Demos: “the cultural debate has been going on for at least the last hundred years or so.” Yes, even longer, but few have been listening to it until recently – thanks to some outspoken atheists who are managing to get heard.

Really, it’s not important to me that people give me broad respect. I’m secure enough not to need it. I think many people feel that way. And I did mean it when I said I can not respect some aspects of a person, while respecting others. One of the big points Dawkins makes in “The God Delusion” is the undue respect (in his opinion) that religion commands compared to just about anything else. After thinking about it, I agree. It’s a cultural shift that will take some time, but perhaps the days will come soon when someone can say “I think your religious beliefs are wacky” the same way they can now say “I think that guy you voted for is a crook.” Not exactly the same, I know, but close enough. Especially when you consider that not all religions can be true. If the Jews are right, the Christians are wrong, same with the Muslims. Some religious people believe that a man rose from the dead and went bodily into heaven (wherever that is), where he still lives, 2,000 years later. Others believe that a man rode a winged horse through the sky. Others, believe they themselves are going to fly up to heaven, leaving sinners (of their same religion) behind to be slaughtered by their savior. These beliefs sound pretty wacky to me. Hard to believe any of them could be true, but people of different faiths and different groups within a faith believe them.

Fine. They may be lovely, decent people in many ways, but I don’t respect those beliefs.

You say, “I respect the intellectual tradition, the heritage, the beauty of Jewish life and thought” So do I, but I don’t respect that awful, bloodthirsty God of Abraham and am convinced by the lack of archeological evidence, that the Jews were not enslaved in Egypt and that the whole Exodus story is just that – a story. Academic Jews accept that – in fact, it was academic Jews who did the research. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0684869128/ref=olp_product_details/002-1878591-2519231?ie=UTF8&seller= However, the word hasn’t filtered down much to the proletariat.

I may continue to respect Jewish people who persist in believing that Exodus happened, but I surely don’t respect the belief.

Ah, it worked. I posted the following twice before. I hope it does not suddenly show up here three times. Perhaps the hyperlinks are causing a problem; let me delete them.

Demos wrote:

"could you slow down just a minute here? Can you name a single legislative proposal that's been introduced in Congress to turn the U.S. into a theocracy?"

There have been dozens, in varying degrees. See ffrf.org

Many are "symbolic" efforts to force the ten commandments and public prayer into public spaces. Some are more serious, such as bringing creationism into public schools biology courses. The most serious of all is an affront not only to atheists, but to religions other than Christianity: it is the "faith based" office of the White House, established by fiat by the president and supported by the Supreme Court. It is a gross violation of the Constitution. See:

heinstatement at ffrf.org

QUOTE:

"James Madison famously wrote that government in a free society may not force a citizen to contribute even 'three pence' in support of any establishment of religion. . . .

Expensive government conferences are offered to churches and religious entities, even including the proverbial free lunch (compliments of taxpayers). 'Faith' groups are taken by the hand, and are encouraged and shown how to apply for federal funding simply because they are church groups. Media have compared the faith-based conferences to 'revival meetings,' since they often include prayer, testimonials, and gospel choirs."

"Can you name a single candidate for any state, local or national position that has suggested repealing the right to freedom of religion?"

George W. Bush, in establishing the faith based initiative. George H. W. Bush in his own words: "No, I don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots. This is one nation under God."

"Can you name a single leader - political, civic or religious - who has called for making atheism illegal?"

This is rather like asking: "Are any anti-gay politicians today trying to make homosexuality illegal?" or "Did the southern racist politicians in 1955 try exterminate black people or drive them away from their homes, the way governments did in the U.S. Plains Indian Wars or the South African apartheid?"

Of course it is not that extreme. Obviously no major U.S. leader advocates making atheism illegal. But many of them do want to make atheists into second class citizens, just as they want to make gay people's lives miserable by kicking them out of the military. They want to take tax money from atheists and force them to support religious activities that atheists find absurd or abhorrent. They want force their children to learn creationism and other religious doctrine in public schools. Judges in custody cases and adaption agencies openly discriminate against atheists. The army and many corporations put pressure on people to express religious beliefs. Bigotry against atheists is not expressed in explicit laws so much as in customs and unspoken practices, the way antisemitism was expressed in the past.

This bigotry has grown worse in recent years with the rise of fundamentalists. The atheists finally became fed up. So did many non-fundamentalist religious sects. There is a society-wide backlash against fundamentalists.

"Calling an atheist 'godless' isn't persecution (tasteless and a weirdly ineffective insult, I suppose, but not persecution)."

Of course it isn't persecution. Why should it be insulting? It is like calling a bald man hairless. It is like accusing a Republican of not being a Democrat, or saying that a Catholic is not a Baptist.

"If scientists are really running that scared of the churchgoers in this country, they need to calm down and get out more."

Scientists are scared of creationists -- with good reason. If you are not upset by creationists then you do not know anything about biology. You might as well substitute flat-earth theory for geography, or magic for physics.

Test message, please ignore.

Either I have been shut out of this forum, or something is wrong with this message posting system.

I shall post the response that I wrote one more time after I post this message. I hope that is appears, since I went to the trouble to write it.

Demos,

Those other groups you named are all political orgainzations. Churches are, by definition, supposed to tend to the spiritual needs of people and not try to pass laws or elect specific candidates.

If religious people want to lobby or influence elections, then let them set up a lobbying organization to do it through. That would certainly be fine by anyone's measure. But don't pretend to be a "church" so you can take advantahe of a church's tax status, and then act as a political organization.

Also, I agree that many rank-and-file church members don't want a theocracy in America, but I also think it is obvious that there are some who do, and there are some leaders who do. Anyone who believes America is a "Christian nation" (and not a diverse nation with freedom of religion for all), or who wants laws to "restore traditional moral values" is on that slope.

You make my case for me when you say, "I don't support it, and don't expect it to pass, but held up next to the Taliban, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, it's pretty mild stuff. "

Well yes, but you don't have to get anywhere near Taliban level to drastically change America's freedom. That's the danger ... people say what's the harm, it's "pretty mild stuff" ... while the chief justice at their state Supreme Court is busy making sure every non-Christian who comes before him is uneasy and unsure about the judge's fairness.

SteveG,

I have to disagree with you. While I oppose churches getting involved in politics, because it distracts them from their core mission (which is, after all, a higher calling) and can end up linking the reputation of Christ to that of a political party (which is never a good idea), giving a church the ability to lobby hardly constitutes a theocracy. I don't support it, and don't expect it to pass, but held up next to the Taliban, Iraq and Saudi Arabia, it's pretty mild stuff. You gotta remember - unions, think tanks, businesses, vegitarians, environmentalists, the AARP and PETA all all lobbying too.

Slippery-slope arguments are fun, and on occassion can be valid - but most times they're not. Your Methodist, Baptist, Episcopalian, and Pentecostal neighbors really don't want a theocracy. The Republican party really doesn't want a theocracy.

The "House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act" and the "Constitution Restoration Act" aren't attempts to create a theocracy - they're responses to the perception among many churches that if their leaders make the same kind of statements that union leaders, business leaders, academics and movie stars make every day, they'll be threatened with loss of their tax exemption. That fear is almost certainly overblown, but it is very real among church leaders all across the political spectrum.

E.F., you said that "the reclaimers for Christ came way before the Hitchens book or any of the recent bestsellers." That's true, of course - but Mr. Hitchens is standing at the end of a long culteral and intellectual tradition. He's a handy example, since his book is the most sensation recent volley from his side, but the cultural debate has been going on for at least the last hundred years or so.

When you say "As for Hitchen's not respecting their beliefs - that's right. I can respect a person in many ways (for instance, their integrity, their kindness, their skills) without respecting a lot of other things about them - their taste in cars, music, their voting preferences or their religious beliefs," you illustrate what I believe to be a very real problem.

Let's talk taste first. You may disagree with my tast in music (I actually enjoy good Bluegrass - Allison Krause, for example). But that doesn't mean you don't respect it. You may disagree with my politics, if you're a member of the "other" party (whichever one that may be). You may disagree with my economic views (e.g., Chicago School versus Keynesian).

None of that requires you to disrespect my views (by which I mean something stronger than believing I'm wrong). Our society, unfortunately, is becoming one where we far too often no longer respect each other - we don't respect the intelligence, integrity, motives, or good will of the other side. We don't respect the positions of people who disagree with us.

Let's take a concrete example. I'm not Jewish - but I can understand why someone else might convert to Judaism. I respect the intellectual tradition, the heritage, the beauty of Jewish life and thought. I have a genuine interest in the thinking of my Jewish friends and colleagues. I can understand how an intellectually honest person could understand the world that way, and build their life that way.

Can you do that with someone who fundamentally disagrees with you over the big questions of life - the existance of God, whether our lives have a purpose, and what that purpose may be, the existance and nature of the human soul, the nature of morality, and whether or not their are universal moral values that are true everywhere and at all times?

If not, do you expect people to treat your personal philosophy and beliefs with that level of respect?

Demos wrote:

could you slow down just a minute here? Can you name a single legislative proposal that's been introduced in Congress to turn the U.S. into a theocracy? Can you name a single candidate for any state, local or national position that has suggested repealing the right to freedom of religion? Can you name a single candidate that has called for legislation establishing a state religion?

Demos,

Perhaps you are unaware, then, of House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act or the Constitution Restoration Act -- theocratic-leaning bills that serious Republican leaders have introduced.

The House of Worship Free Speech Restoration Act (HR 235), introducted in 2005, would have revoked the laws that prevent churches from engaging in political acivities while retaining their tax-exempt status.

The Constitution Restoration Act is even more dangerous. It would make it so that "the Supreme Court shall not have jurisdiction to review, by appeal, writ of certiorari, or otherwise, any matter to the extent that relief is sought against an entity of Federal, State, or local government, or against an officer or agent of Federal, State, or local government (whether or not acting in official or personal capacity), concerning that entity's, officer's, or agent's acknowledgment of God as the sovereign source of law, liberty, or government."

In other words, the Supreme Court would no longer have the authority to issue rulings on the Constitutionality of government-endorsed religious speech. Alabama Republican Sen. Richard Shelby and Rep. Robert Aderholt. It was originally drafted by Roy Moore, the former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice who refused to take down a display of the Ten Commandments.

Your challenge is a bit naive because of course no one could seriously do something as sweeping as repealing freedom of religion or enacting a state religion.

No, if theocracy came to America it would do it in the guise of new laws bearing patriotic-sounding titles, and it would erode the separation of church and state in small pieces, brick by brick. Chip away a small piece of the wall of separation here, another small bit there, so that most people don't notice or think it's benign... until the day comes when we realize the wall isnt' there anymore.

last post from ef is mine

Demos says: "They're just trying to reclaim it because they think it's only wise to respond to an environment where a book entitled "God is Not Great" that attacks their core values is on the best-seller list."

Actually the reclaimers for Christ came way before the Hitchens book or any of the recent bestsellers.

As for Hitchen's not respecting their beliefs - that's right. I can respect a person in many ways (for instance, their integrity, their kindness, their skills) without respecting a lot of other things about them - their taste in cars, music, their voting preferences or their religious beliefs. I was recently religious myself, but now I find it hard to respect any belief in an invisible supernatural being. I respect their right to have that belief, but I don't respect the belief.

Sorry if this is posted twice.
I only had time to skim this, but I must say it is the most lively discussion I've read all year. I just want to add a comment concerning logical positivism (LP)(mentioned in the discussion). Logical positivism (a la Carnap & AJ Ayer) is the position that there are only two types of meaningful statements: tautologies (type I) and statement that are empirically verifiable (type II). The first type is exemplified by mathematics. The second by the sciences. All other discourse is cannot be meaningfully described as true or false, and is therefore nonsense.
Tautologies are "without ontological import." They say nothing about the "real world" (if you are not a Platonist) They may be a mathematical model we can empirically verify, but then they become a type II statement. Now here's the thing: is LP's definition of a meaningful statement type I? Then is says nothing about the real world. Is it type II? Hardly. It's a definition. Ergo, as logicians say, it is mere opinion and cannot be said to be true or false. LP is hoisted on it's own petard. BTW I learned this in college and that was 50 years ago. So if any readers subscribe to LP, you are not keeping up.

I only had time to skim this, but I must say it is the most lively discussion I've read all year. I just want to add a comment concerning logical positivism (LP)(mentioned in the discussion). Logical positivism (a la Carnap & AJ Ayer) is the position that there are only two types of meaningful statements: tautologies (type I) and statement that are empirically verifiable (type II). The first type is exemplified by mathematics. The second by the sciences. All other discourse is cannot be meaningfully described as true or false, and is therefore nonsense.
Tautologies are "without ontological import." They say nothing about the "real world" (if you are not a Platonist) They may be a mathematical model we can empirically verify, but then they become a type II statement. Now here's the thing: is LP's definition of a meaningful statement type I? Then is says nothing about the real world. Is it type II? Hardly. It's a definition. Ergo, as logicians say, it is mere opinion and cannot be said to be true or false. LP is hoisted on it's own petard. BTW I learned this in college and that was 50 years ago. So if any readers subscribe to LP, you are not keeping up.

"Please Demos, take your own advice and don't ramp up the rhetoric: don't make it sound like it's scientists against churchgoers."

E,

I never intended to say that scientists were persecuting churchgoers. There have been a couple of literary polemics, such as Hitchen's, that can only be described as fairly in-your-face salvos in an intellectual attack - but as I said to Jed, that's not the same thing as persecution.

What I was really responding to was Jed's apparant feeling that atheists had been attacked, provoked, that their civil rights were under attack, and that they were "responding" because fundamentalists were "trying to convert the U.S. into a theocracy."

Is it really wise to respond to people who call this a Christian nation, or who want to "reclaim" it? They're just trying to reclaim it because they think it's only wise to respond to an environment where a book entitled "God is Not Great" that attacks their core values is on the best-seller list.

Who's right? Probably both. There's a long Christian tradition in this country, which has helped shape our culture and legal system (along with many other things). Many, many Americans are still Christians, and the churches still have a significant social influence (although there are many countervailing forces). That leads to moral, and sometimes political, judgements and values that nonbelievers sometimes disagree with or are uncomfortable with. (Let's face it, none of us are particularly comfortable with voting blocks that fundamentally disagree with us, and are large enough and effective enough to potentially win.)

On the other hand, we're more secular than ever before, and authors and other public figures are openly attacking the intellectual foundations of religious faith more broadly than ever before. Whether Hitchens is right or wrong, it's fair to say that churchgoers correctly sense that he and similar authors have abandoned any pretence of respect for their beliefs.

Are we about to become a "godless nation?" Not likely in our lifetimes. Are we about to become a theocracy? Again, not likely in our lifetimes.

To misquote you, most churchgoers are busy getting on with their lives and their faith - they don't have time to think about these things either. They also most certainly don't want a theocracy.

But honestly - so Jed feels provoked (and maybe you do to). Just like most domestic disagreements, everyone has some reason or other to feel provoked - after all, how can a book like "God is Not Great" be seen as anything other than a gauntlet cast down?

"If scientists are really running that scared of the churchgoers in this country, they need to calm down and get out more."

Please Demos, take your own advice and don't ramp up the rhetoric: don't make it sound like it's scientists against churchgoers. Many scientists are so busy in their labs, they don't have time to think too much about this and many churchgoers are firmly in favor of separation between church and state.

Also Hitchens is not against freedom of religion.

You're right about no legislation to turn the US into a theocracy, etc, but I think it's wise to respond when lots of people are out there making statements like "This is a Christian nation" and there are national conferences held, attended by members of Congress, called "Reclaiming America for Christ."

So, Louie - I'd be interested in your reaction to what believer said.

"When the fundamentalists quiet down and stop trying to convert the U.S. into a theocracy, most atheists will will once again ignore religion."

Jed,

could you slow down just a minute here? Can you name a single legislative proposal that's been introduced in Congress to turn the U.S. into a theocracy? Can you name a single candidate for any state, local or national position that has suggested repealing the right to freedom of religion? Can you name a single candidate that has called for legislation establishing a state religion?

Can you name a single leader - political, civic or religious - who has called for making atheism illegal?

Just how common are lynchings or other hate crimes against atheists - just for being atheists?

Yes, there are radical Muslims throughout the world who are calling for the establishment of Sharia as the law of whatever land they're in. But we're not getting that in this country - not from Muslims, not from Christians, and not from Jews. Sure, everyone - atheists included - vote their consciences. But that's not the same thing as a theocracy.

You talk about "the ugly side of religious fanaticism." We've certainly seen that in Darfur, in Israel, in Iraq, in Iran, and in Afghanistan - but can you seriously say that atheists are persecuted in this country? Debate isn't persecution. Vigorous disagreement isn't persecution (even if it comes with a bit of rhetorical name-calling, which goodness knows, isn't limited to one side of any modern debate). Calling an atheist "godless" isn't persecution (tasteless and a weirdly ineffective insult, I suppose, but not persecution).

Jed,

I apologize for dumping on you, but I really do get tired of the way these debates go. No public figure or significant voting block - religious or not - wants to overthrow the Constitution and turn the U.S. into a theocracy. Rhetoric to that effect is way overwrought - just as no one (other than perhaps, I hope, Hitchens) wants to restrict the freedom of religion.

If scientists are really running that scared of the churchgoers in this country, they need to calm down and get out more.

"Gods do not exist indpendently of one's thinking about it; thus it is not so subject to scientific investigation. Gravity, for example, exists whether one thinks about it or not and can be the subject of scientific inquiry; why man believes in god(s) may be studied empirically because other's believing goes on independently of anyone else's thiking about it. The important questions about religion are about why man believes at all and how those beliefs affect others."

Needlegrass,

it sounds to me as if you're firmly planted on one side of the debate. Your comments would seem to suggest that metaphysics and religion have, at best, only poetic or metaphorical truth. That's an increasingly common way of resolving the apparant conflicts between religion, philosphy and science.

I disagree with that approach, though. While the philosophers and the scriptures of all religions clearly use metaphors to convey some concepts (just as good science teachers use metaphors and other illustrations with their classes - "imagine photons as . . ."), underneath those metaphors they do in fact make truth claims about the nature of reality. If Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or Shinto, or Buddhism, etc.) is nothing more than a useful myth, then it's not worth my time. I can make one of those up on my own. I'm convinced that it's more than that. It sounds like you're not, which is fine. But frankly, it grants a philosophy or religion more dignity to understand that it is making a real claim to truth, and to flat out disagree with it, than to treat it as a charming fable the truth of which is irrelevant.

"Gods do not exist indpendently of one's thinking about it; thus it is not so subject to scientific investigation. Gravity, for example, exists whether one thinks about it or not and can be the subject of scientific inquiry; why man believes in god(s) may be studied empirically because other's believing goes on independently of anyone else's thiking about it. The important questions about religion are about why man believes at all and how those beliefs affect others."

Needlegrass,

it sounds to me as if you're firmly planted on one side of the debate. Your comments would seem to suggest that metaphysics and religion have, at best, only poetic or metaphorical truth. That's an increasingly common way of resolving the apparant conflicts between religion, philosphy and science.

I disagree with that approach, though. While the philosophers and the scriptures of all religions clearly use metaphors to convey some concepts (just as good science teachers use metaphors and other illustrations with their classes - "imagine photons as . . ."), underneath those metaphors they do in fact make truth claims about the nature of reality. If Christianity (or Islam, or Judaism, or Shinto, or Buddhism, etc.) is nothing more than a useful myth, then it's not worth my time. I can make one of those up on my own. I'm convinced that it's more than that. It sounds like you're not, which is fine. But frankly, it grants a philosophy or religion more dignity to understand that it is making a real claim to truth, and to flat out disagree with it, than to treat it as a charming fable the truth of which is irrelevant.

You wrote:

"It seems to me that America is becoming more polarized, with people both fervently religious and decidedly atheist each establishing their own parallel culture and literary canon . . ."

People often say that the modern age is polarized, but I do not think so. It was much worse during the Civil War, the civil rights movement and the Vietnam War.

I think the division between religion and atheism is temporary. It is a fad, and it will soon fade away. It was caused by the upsurge in aggressive fundamentalist religion in recent decades. The U.S. has had many revivalist movements such as the Great Awakening. They always fade away after a while, although I doubt religion will perish altogether.

The fundamentalists attacked atheists, and the atheists felt they had to respond. Their constitutional rights have been attacked. Their patriotism has been called into question. The wall of separation between church and state is endangered.

The 9/11 attacks also brought out the ugly side of religious fanaticism.

My impression is that most atheists have no interest in religion, and they would not have acted had they had not been provoked.

Studies published in the Scientific American and described by Dawkins and Jacoby show that scientists are overwhelmingly atheists. My experience bears this out. Roughly 200 of my friends and colleagues are scientists, mainly physicists, chemists and biologists. I edit and translate their papers, and meet with them once or twice a year. Out of this group, I can think of only six who went to church. No doubt there are a few others, but I do not recall any who expressed interest in religion, or talked about it. They are talkative people who never hesitate to express an opinion. They never express hostility toward religion; they just don't care, any more than I care about a contact bridge tournament. My impression is that when they stop to think about it, they agree with Dawkins, but they seldom stop to think because they are busy people.

When the fundamentalists quiet down and stop trying to convert the U.S. into a theocracy, most atheists will will once again ignore religion.

One does not really know what it is one believes or why he or she believes it unless he or she seriously and regularly reads opposing views on a subject.

Thus, I read the NYT and the Weekly Standard. Thus, I read Richard Dawkins and LaHaye.

No one else is right all the time even occasionally on all or even limited subjects; why should I pretend to be. My objective as a lifelong learner is to achieve a deeper understanding, not to be right, but hopefully not either to be perpetually and stupidly wrong or ignorant.

Anthropomorphism abounds in discussions about god(s). It interferes in ways that fatally doom rational discussion. The use of it says more about man that about the god being interpreted.

Gods do not exist indpendently of one's thinking about it; thus it is not so subject to scientific investigation. Gravity, for example, exists whether one thinks about it or not and can be the subject of scientific inquiry; why man believes in god(s) may be studied empirically because other's believing goes on independently of anyone else's thiking about it. The important questions about religion are about why man believes at all and how those beliefs affect others.

A debate divide has existed and will continue in perpetuity to exist, never to be resolved in a satisfactorily manner. Deeper understanding may occur, but not resolution of the debate.

For me the real life questions concern the extent to which, based on my understanding, I allow myself to be swayed from time to time or over my lifetime by one side or the other in the debate. The issue is the extent to which I allow those who believe in total mental abstractions versus those who believe in scientific explanations to influence me. Everyday, I allow both perspectives to influence me to some degree and I acquiesce, and I also question large elements of both perspectives.

Louie,

one thing that helped me was the realization that the world we live in is, in very real terms, a battle zone. There's much of good, love and joy that we can see. There's also much that can only be described as pure evil. We sometimes talk about finding common ground between religions - this is something that Christianity, Judaism and Islam all agree on. God is, to use your words, creative and loving. But creatures with free will are in active revolt against Him, and there are casualties (leaving aside the big crimes like murder and rape, how many times have we been hurt by someone else - and how many times have we hurt others in return?).

If we have been created by a loving God, what might His purposes be? His goals for us will be eternal in nature, and extend far beyond we may want today. Just like a parent, He won't desire pain or sorrow for us - but like a parent, He'll want us to mature, and won't protect us against everything, or give us everything we want.

I don't want to minimize this - it's one of the thorniest questions in theology. But thoughtful Christians don't expect that God will necessarily give us tranquil, peaceful lives. The New Testament repeatedly warns that if you live a truly righteous life, you will be persecuted. It's also clear that God wants His people to be actively engaged in opposing evil, and that we will sometimes be hurt in the process.

God as Santa Claus isn't good theology, and doesn't make sense when you look at the real world. (Besides - if literally every prayer were answered, no one would ever die. The natural cycle of life and death is part of God's plan and will for us - we can't expect Him to overturn it because the separation of death pains us.)

As I get older I believe less and less in the personal God, the one that you pray too and who sometimes seems to answer your prayers and at other times seems not to answer your prayers.

I believe in a creative force, a loving creative force, but I wonder if this force intervenes in a persons life as many believe a God of their understanding does.

Why would God choose to help some, but not others?
Why would God choose to answer some of your prayers but not others? Are our prayers really heard by a God or are answered and unanswered prayers just random acts of nature?

Of course there's no god.What rubbish.We are so indoctrinated by religion,its only when we really think about it you realize it jus like kids saying,
"Is there really a Santa Claus?" Of course there's no Santa Claus,and of course there's no god.

One thing that seems to be driving the polarization is a refusal of many to enter into a real debate, because they assume at the outset that the positions taken by other side are illegitimate or in some other way not worth taking seriously. If one side doesn't accept metaphysics as a legitimate area of inquiry, then you can't have a metaphysical debate.

It strikes me that far too many of us assume that a secularist, scientifically aware worldview is the same thing as logical positivism. If the answer to a question isn't (at least in principle) directly verifiable by physical measurement, then the question itself is meaningless. This automatically throws most of what are the core issues of life for many of us (good, evil, justice, purpose, love, faith) completely out of the discussion.

On the other side, religious individuals often assume that outspoken non-believers are actively attacking their faith (on this score, writers like Mr. Hitchens aren't helping much), or are willfully blind.

We should all make one core assumption, and ask one basic question. The assumption is that those who disagree with us are of normal intelligence (and frankly, both sides have some remarkable minds actively thinking and writing) and are subject to no more than the common human share of self-deception, self-interest and plain old "not getting it." The question is "what would make a thoughtful, intelligent person think that?" If we ask this question honestly, the answer we find may not cause us to agree with the people we ask it about - but it will ensure that we understand them better (and may make it easier for us to reach them, if at the end of the day we do still disagree with them)